Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't know why people always compare things from different times. The Me262 from 1945 compared to the Meteor from the fifties.
cimmex
German jet engines had one very practical advantage over allied ones in this period: They could be relighted in flight after flame-out.
Didn't the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 run in Nov 1941. The 19XB first ran in March 1943.
S6 said: "Westinghouse 19XB"
The Westinghouse J30, initially known as the Westinghouse 19XB....
He quoted Wiki. So Wiki needs to be corrected.
Of the seven pilots killed in P-80s up to Aug. '45, two were caused by fuel pump failure although both had a backup fuel pump but were not operated properly by the pilot, one of these was Bong, one was caused by a midair collision, one was a failure of the tail pipe flange (this was one of the planes sent to Europe), one by over rotation and stall on takeoff, and one due to possible trim tab failure. An earlier, non-fatal, accident was caused by impure metal used in manufacturing of the turbine wheel. So, of the first seven fatal accidents of the P-80, none can be attributed to failure of the engine itself. One non-fatal accident that was an engine failure was a manufacturing quality problem. Additionally, the deployment to Europe was considered successful and the P-80 assumed rapid procurement. The one loss to these four was due to tail pipe separation. So I don't think your comment can be supported.The US tried to get its P-80 into service in Italy in 1945, but it was totally non-operational due to engine issues.
The Jumo 004H would have offered 3970 lbs thrust and been in service some time before the Nene, as it was just an enhancement of the 004 rather than a bigger Derwent, like the Nene was. Yes, the Nene would have been better than the Jumo 004H (though the Nene would have lost to the Jumo 012, which was a bigger 004 like the Nene was a bigger Derwent), but the Nene wouldn't fit on a Meteor, so would require a new jet fighter.
the Nene was a bigger Derwent), but the Nene wouldn't fit on a Meteor, so would require a new jet fighter.
German jet engines were ahead of the British ones by about a year or so. Even with the Jumo 004 being a dead end there were still developments of it that would have kept its edge if the war had gone on for a few more years until it could be replaced by something better, of which there were several other designs still having their problems worked out. I find it interesting that so many here seem to think that the post-war designs of the Allies were indications of their superiority of the Germans, while ignoring the other engines which also had not reached service yet that were under development with German firms. Comparing the Jumo 004 to post-war designs is not comparing apples to apples.
That would have given the Jumo engine greater performance until 1946, by which time the Mark IV Derwent would be around, but then so would the 004H and probably the Jumo 012.
The P-80 was not able to get into service, despite being deployed to Italy in 1945; its engines were a mess and it couldn't even fly.
The entire point of the Axial flow design was it was easier to get into service quickly, even though the Centrifugal design was more efficient; it was more difficult to get into service quickly and needed many more years to get it into widespread service.
That was a first test, that means nothing about getting an engine ready for production and service. Otherwise the Jumo 222 would have been ready in 1941 along with the Jumo 004.
The US tried to get its P-80 into service in Italy in 1945, but it was totally non-operational due to engine issues.
The P-80 was not able to get into service, despite being deployed to Italy in 1945; its engines were a mess and it couldn't even fly.
If you believe its engines 'were a mess' and 'it couldn't even fly' you should document why you think so - and elaborate why the USAAF was stupid to buy such a defective fighter.
I am not sure but the only primary data speed curves I have ever seen referring to Ta-152C0 performances based upon the DB-603L are referring to 1.75 ata and B4 fuel. 1.75 ata is roughly 2,240HP max. That´s not max power with MW-50 ("Sondernotleistung"=1.95ata with MW-50 injection, "Start-und Notleistung" 1.75ata for Db-603L without MW-50 injection). -just to keep in mind. Critical altitude should be lower and speed better with MW-50 at and below crit alt.
If compared with P47M, one should therefore use the curves without water injection, too. e.g. the curves with 54.5" instead of 72" hg. For these power ratings we do have comparable data, for MW-50 injection performances in the Ta-152C we would need to rely on speculation, which I would reject in absence of sources.
I will admit to being significantly handicapped because I cannot read German. This also manifests itself in translating poor resolution copy, which I probably could if I knew what words were likely to apply. Anyway, the chart I was using is titled "Horizontalgeschwindigkeit uber der flughohe mit Sondernotleistung", and rates the Ta 152 C-1 with a DB 603LA engine but does indeed reflect B4 fuel and a 1.75 ata so your comments are valid.
I fully agree.But aside from this, the example shows pretty clearly that the limit of piston engined A/C was approached by all powers. The only justifyable progress in performance loomed with jet propulsion.