Switch the Axis and Allies planes during WW2 (1943 Western Front)

[cimmex]

It's interesting that some people are speculating about an allied jet in the Me 262 in this scenario. The jet engine was not a German invention. We had them first but for a variety of reasons did not develop them in time for the war. We could have had a jet aircraft in combat mid war (for the Brits, late for the US!) but failed to do so.

Cheers

Steve

The centrifugal design of the British jet engine was not very forward-looking same as the HS08 which powered the He280 and had the first flight already in September 1940. Germany relied on the axial design which had a much better development potential. Axial jet engines are still in use while the centrifugal ones disappeared completely.
cimmex

 

[Ascent]

The centrifugal design of the British jet engine was not very forward-looking same as the HS08 which powered the He280 and had the first flight already in September 1940. Germany relied on the axial design which had a much better development potential. Axial jet engines are still in use while the centrifugal ones disappeared completely.
cimmex

For the Brits, with Sir Stanley Hooker's work on superchargers, it made sense to use centifugal compressors. After all what is a supercharger but a centrifugal compressor? It meant that they could have a reliable engine ready for use now instead of something that would either not be reliable or would take longer to bring into production. Even with the Centifugal compressors in use I believe they were still developing Axial flow versions.

 

[Shortround6]

The centrifugal design of the British jet engine was not very forward-looking same as the HS08 which powered the He280 and had the first flight already in September 1940. Germany relied on the axial design which had a much better development potential. Axial jet engines are still in use while the centrifugal ones disappeared completely.
cimmex

Yes, but they didn't disappear until some time in the 1950s and are still used in in small turbo props and some helicopter engines. The Axial flow engines didn't begin to hit their stride until the late 40s, early 50s. Much too late to have difference in any possiable WW II aircraft.

 

[Dogwalker]

I'm not an expert but I believe the Italians had some very good fighters around this period but had a poor industrial base to actually get them into service properly. What would the Allies be able to do with these with their manufacturing muscle?

1943 was a good year for Italian fighters, as the "5 Series" fighters were introduced in late '42 / early '43. The Fiat G55 was well suited for mass production, had more range than a Bf 109G6 and three cannons whitout external pods (and the possibility to be easily equipped with a DB603 engine).
The Reggiane 2001OR was made to be the first generation single-type fighter/bomber/torpedo-bomber of the "Aquila" carrier (it could carry a 600kg torpedo, or bomb, under the belly, and bombs, or drop tanks, under the wings), and to be then replaced by a special version of the Reggiane 2005 (able to carry 1000kg under the belly), so all three might be useful.
However, the problem would still be the long-range escort for the bombers, so existing aircrafts had to be modified, or two-seat heavy fighters, like me-410, or Imam Ro.58 (to be produced, since there was only a prototype) had to be used.

 

[Ascent]

Yes, but they didn't disappear until some time in the 1950s and are still used in in small turbo props and some helicopter engines. The Axial flow engines didn't begin to hit their stride until the late 40s, early 50s. Much too late to have difference in any possiable WW II aircraft.

I would say in most helicopter engines. The Apache is certainly powered by a Turboshaft engine using a centrifugal compressor.

 

[wuzak]

The centrifugal design of the British jet engine was not very forward-looking same as the HS08 which powered the He280 and had the first flight already in September 1940. Germany relied on the axial design which had a much better development potential. Axial jet engines are still in use while the centrifugal ones disappeared completely.
cimmex

AA Griffiths and Metropolitan Vickers were well into developing the F.1 turboprop when Whittle demonstrated his jet.

They stopped the turboprop development and started work on the F.2 turbojet. The F.2 flew under the wings of a Meteor prototype in late 1943. The decision was to not put the F.2 in production because it was difficult to produce and had reliability issues. Whittle types, on the other hand, were simpler, easier to produce and more reliable.

 

[wuzak]

I would say in most helicopter engines. The Apache is certainly powered by a Turboshaft engine using a centrifugal compressor.

Actually in small gas turbines in general.

The Pratt Whitney Canada PT6, for example, uses a centrifugal compressor with its axial flow compressor.

Later Heinkel designs also used a type of centrifugal/axial hybrid compressor. This was due to the debate in the design team over which way to go. It was called a diagonal flow compressor, it wasn't very good but worked with the axial flow initial stages.

 

[altsym]

İt was only cleared at the end of 1944 after DB introduced new spark plugs.

The infamous sparkplug:

 

[parsifal]

why infamous?

 

[OldSkeptic]

The centrifugal design of the British jet engine was not very forward-looking same as the HS08 which powered the He280 and had the first flight already in September 1940. Germany relied on the axial design which had a much better development potential. Axial jet engines are still in use while the centrifugal ones disappeared completely.
cimmex

Oh axial flows engines had much better development potential ... 10 years later.

But at the time a centrifugal flow engines of excellent performance and size of up to 5,000lbs thrust (ie the Nene, which spun off the smaller 4,000lb Derwent V) could be quickly created and mass produced with existing technology, while the axial flow required much further development and whole new technologies to be developed.

 

[Aozora]

So, switching aircrafts, since the entire first line of Allied aircrafts in 1943 required at least C3 fuel...


That, in the FW190D, was replaced by the B4 fuelled Jumo 213E (and B4 fuelled were the production versions of the DB603), showing a certain tendency toward saving the C3, instead of using only it.

Supplies of C3 fuel were problematic in 1940-41, such that the RLM prevaricated over whether or not to use the DB 601N as a priority in Bf 110 production, or switch back to the B4 fueled DB 601A series. AFAIK C3 fuel supplies continued to be problematic throughout the war.

 

[nuuumannn]

Axial jet engines are still in use while the centrifugal ones disappeared completely.

Centrifugal compressors are used in almost all modern turboprops, because they are more robust and take a greater amount of punishment than axial flow ones. Although in pure jets the axial flow engine proved the way of the future, it is worth remembering that between WW2 and the mid '50s, the centirfugal flow gas turbine was king in frontline fighters - this is because it was a more reliable stepping stone owing to the complexities of the axial flow engine. Sometime in the late 40s, Rolls-Royce abandoned developing the Nene and concentrated on the Avon; this meant that the British did not have an interim fighter between the Meteor and the Hunter; the appearance of the MiG-15 proved that improving the Nene and building a single-seat fighter around it would have been a useful step. The British had no answer to the MiG-15 and had to rely on the inferior Meteor and Vampire until the Hunter and Swift entered service.

 

[cimmex]

A better development potential is not limited to a time frame it is there or not. I was never talking about helicopter engines or turboprops just engines for Jets. And for high speed planes centrifugal ones are clearly inferior because of high drag. The Meteor needed nearly double thrust and could not reach the speed of the Me262 during WWII.
cimmex
cimmex

 

[Tante Ju]

Supplies of C3 fuel were problematic in 1940-41, such that the RLM prevaricated over whether or not to use the DB 601N as a priority in Bf 110 production, or switch back to the B4 fueled DB 601A series. AFAIK C3 fuel supplies continued to be problematic throughout the war.

Any source for this supposed "problematic" supply? I see this claim a lot, but never specifics.

 

[Civettone]

I agree that axial flow jet engines have better development potential and that the Germans might have developed a working jet sooner, had they stuck to the easier centrifugal design. However, they tried with the HeS 08 and got nowhere. Also, you guys use a lot of British examples to claim that the centrifugal jets prevailed until early 1950s, but I believe all American jets after the P-80 received axial jet engines, starting in 1946.

Kris

 

[Aozora]

Any source for this supposed "problematic" supply? I see this claim a lot, but never specifics.

There are specifics available showing that there were supply problems; eg:

So I've gotta ask where's your evidence that C3 fuel supplies were ironed out enough to ensure that it was in regular use throughout the Luftwaffe? This is often claimed but very few specifics are ever posted.

 

[Shortround6]

A better development potential is not limited to a time frame it is there or not. I was never talking about helicopter engines or turboprops just engines for Jets. And for high speed planes centrifugal ones are clearly inferior because of high drag. The Meteor needed nearly double thrust and could not reach the speed of the Me262 during WWII.
cimmex

Make sure you are not confusing cause and effect. And you might want to check you facts. When the Meteor did get double the power of 262 it could most certainly out run it.

development potential is just that, potential if it cannot be realized for another 5-10 years it is rather useless for planes needed in 1-2 years.

 

[Tante Ju]

There are specifics available showing that there were supply problems; eg:

I do not see the problems you visioned. There a vague reference to "C3 situation", but it seems there was a shortage of C-3 capable engines (DB 601N) and single engined fighters got priority to that as opposed Bf 110. Looking at the exact reports would probably clear up any confusion.

So I've gotta ask where's your evidence that C3 fuel supplies were ironed out enough to ensure that it was in regular use throughout the Luftwaffe? This is often claimed but very few specifics are ever posted.

Well in the first half of 1941 practically all new production fighter aircraft (109E/N, 109F1,2) were using C3 fueled DB 601N. Thousends of aircraft produced to run on C-3 - that is pretty strong evidence against non-evidence. Converting your entire s-e fighter force to C-3 casts some serious doubts about these allaged "C-3 problems". Then there of course the entire Fw 190A line (and other 801D powered), all mandated to run on C-3.

 

[stona]

This question seems to have a rather obvious answer.

If there was plenty of both fuel grades why bother to develop, late in the war, engines that could use both?

Cheers

Steve

 

[Milosh]

I guess cimmex has not heard of the British company Metropolitan-Vickers.

Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia