Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When that occurs, you're only looking at about 30 seconds. After that you're good to go, unlike a recip where you may have to wait several minutes for oil temps and pressures to come up before you could even taxi.When the engines start, you have to watch the pyrometers (exhaust temp) stabilize and then bring the engine RPMs up to level.
When that occurs, you're only looking at about 30 seconds. After that you're good to go, unlike a recip where you may have to wait several minutes for oil temps and pressures to come up before you could even taxi.
Great flick!
In many if not most turbine engines, there is little "warm-up" time needed unlike a recip. Cool down during shut down - different story.
This is from Zeno - the POH developed by the AAF for captured Me 262 operation. Although there is a paragraph about "warm up" and ground test, there is no specific warm up parameter, the only requirement was ensuring the exhaust temp didn't exceed 650 C.
Additionally, I'd imagine the slow spool up and down times made towing faster and more reliable in a number of cases, not to mention less wear on the tires and wheel breaks.For fuel conservation
When the engines start, you have to watch the pyrometers (exhaust temp) stabilize and then bring the engine RPMs up to level.
While the Rydell expedited the process as opposed to an electronic start, it still saved a great deal of fuel starting the engines on the flightline and then on to a direct T/O instead of startup back on the ramp and taxiing into the que.
Additionally, I'd imagine the slow spool up and down times made towing faster and more reliable in a number of cases, not to mention less wear on the tires and wheel breaks.
I also recall Jumo 004B start-up procedure including use of high volatility gasoline for initial start and warm-up, followed by dilution with kerosene/diesel (J2) as the combustion chambers warmed up.
Given that several other early turbojets (including the Nene and Derwent V post-war) had dedicated engine-start fuel lines independent of the main fuel lines, this sort of operation doesn't seem that unusual. (I'm not sure if the Derwent/Nene used special fuel or just pre-heated kerosene or something else, but the dedicated starter-fuel line seems indicative of something special going on)
Heinkel/Ohain's jet engines used hydrogen for their initial warm-up to avoid fouling of the vaporizer jets. (later versions during HeS 8 development may have switched to atomized burners allowing cold start on liquid fuel, but I suspect a more likely solution would have been adapting some more convenient volatile, smokeless liquid fuel like methanol -Ohain's burners operated like that of a blow lamp, requiring preheating and ending up a horrible sooty mess if gasoline/kerosene was used for this)
No wonder then that the Luftwaffe had so much hassle getting more than about 30 to 40 Me 262s into the air on any given day. They only had to have a shortage of any ONE of the three fuels to rule it out.Yes, three types of fuel were carried although very limited amount of the starter fuels
Riedel engine used A3 fuel (3 liter pe engine) - AFAIR 82 Oktan, standard low-grade AV fuel also used by Fi 156, Fw 189
Jet engine starter fuel was B4 (17 liter per engine) - 87 Oktan, standard AV fuel, used by most Bf 109
Per manual tanks were located near or within the jet engines, starter fuel sufficient for ~4 start attempts; starter fuel was just for start/ignition but not for warming-up
WRONGI could agree with that!
WRONG
Both were bomber interdiction straight line fighters. Very fast but turning circles were awful so a dogfight would have been virtually impossible - which is why they never happened, plus of course the Meteor was banned from flying over mainland Europe until the war was virtually over. What a stupid question.
WRONG
Both were bomber interdiction straight line fighters. Very fast but turning circles were awful so a dogfight would have been virtually impossible - which is why they never happened, plus of course the Meteor was banned from flying over mainland Europe until the war was virtually over. What a stupid question.
WRONG
Both were bomber interdiction straight line fighters. Very fast but turning circles were awful so a dogfight would have been virtually impossible - which is why they never happened, plus of course the Meteor was banned from flying over mainland Europe until the war was virtually over. What a stupid question.
And a bit lacking in fact/s
Granted a Meteor might not be able to hold a circle for very long but the early Meteors had a big wing (374sq ft) and rather low wing loading (35-36lbs/sq ft at full gross). The poor thrust means that as speed bleeds off in a turn it is harder to recover, (accelerate once the turn is loosened or stopped) so a tight turn may not be a good tactic.
The 262 had a wing about 2/3rds the size and went about 1000lbs more at take-off. Both planes burned fuel at a horrendous rate compared to piston engine planes so weight at point of engagement would be significantly less but the Meteor should always have an advantage in turn (even if not roll which was poor on the early Meteors))
If the diagram is to scale then it seems the Spitfire can out turn my car at speeds over 40 MPHSR6,
Great chart! I wonder how much difference there really is? I doubt the "steps" in size were as even as depicted.
Cheers,
Biff
The diagram is OK, but I don't know about whether it would be wise to dogfight with a Spitfire...If the diagram is to scale then it seems the Spitfire can out turn my car at speeds over 40 MPH
A new unit under Galland fared better, but the Me 262 was difficult to handle by even the most experienced pilots...