Zyzygie’s Mumbles and Rambles

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


And further to that, Black is the new White...
"...Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored..."
​
Thanks for the reference to The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It
 
And you choose to ignore the references of those posted earlier who stated that the 262 WAS NOT a difficult aircraft to fly?!?!?!?

So tell me, putting political culture aside - do you have any TECHNICAL talking points to back up your rant???
 
Settle down flyboy

Don't lower yourself to his level...

In the meantime:
...While very fast, the Me 262 was not without drawbacks and problems. The novel Jumo 004 engines were short-lived and unreliable, prone to flaming out and catching fire. Of course, the Me 262 was a twin-engined aircraft (a very good idea!) and it could fly well enough with just one working engine. Landing was a different matter; asymmetric thrust made landings very tricky. The jet could not accelerate very quickly, requiring extra-long airstrips for take-off. Nor could it decelerate quickly, and 'go-arounds' on landings were impractical. It could not turn well, and lost a lot of speed on hard turns, critical drawbacks in aerial combat. Handling was very challenging, and only for experienced, skillful pilots. While the Me 262 could fly like Hell and was heavily armed, that was it...
Yes the Me 262 was very fast and great as a bomber destroyer. Just a pity about the reliability, that's all.

​
 
Last edited:
Just for the record, NO first generation jet could accelerate quickly. The technology was in it's infancy and no jet engines at the time were rock-solid performers. And in regards to the turning reference, the Me262 could turn far better than many people assume. It was capable of sharp turns and by virtue of it's design, it turned well. But as with any aircraft, a sustained turn bled off speed and the Me262's engines weren't able to respond as quickly to this situation as a piston-powered aircraft.

Refer to the list of fighter kills posted earlier and see how many Allied fighters underestimated the Me262's ability to stand and fight.

The reference to twin-engined aircraft was rather odd, as most jet aircraft of the day were multiple engined:
Gloster Meteor, Bell P-59, Heinkel He280, Nakajima Kikka, Horton Ho.IX, Lockheed P-80, Bell XP-83 and so on - the Ar234 had two and later, four (Ar234C).
This is due to the low thrust of the early engines, taking into account of not only the airframe's weight, but the weight of the engine(s) as well.

Only three early jets successfully (and reliably) flew with a single engine: He178, Gloster E.28/39 and the He162 and all had compact, lightweight airframes that allowed a single engine's thrust to provide the necessary power to keep them airborn.
 

The P 80 was single engined (Allison J33). The Vampire was single engined (de Havilland Goblin).
In terms of roll rate, that was the way to go then if you could, as to try and fit two of the first generation engines into the fuselage was not possible.

The acceleration of the Me 262 with its JUMO 004 was chronic, due to:
- the inferior metals used in its hot components
- the tendency for the then axial flow compressors to surge, causing damage to the flame tubes and/or turbine blades
- recall what the man said : don't try to touch the throttle if possible at altitude or you'll likely get a flameout
​
Yes, the ME 262 could get kills by "hit and run" ambush, but trying to dogfight was "suicidal."
 
Anyone care to hear what someone who had extensive experience on the Meteor thought of the Me 262 when he had a chance to fly it?
Flight Lieutenant Clive Gosling of 616 Squadron picked up an Me 262 from Fassberg and enjoyed a flight in it. Here are his conclusions.

"Now, what was the Me 262 like in comparison to the Meteor? It was 80 kph faster, the critical Mach number was higher and the rate of climb roughly similar. The rudder balance was smooth and the view from the cockpit was definitely not so good. It was rather more difficult to fly and the turbines were less reliable. I had flown two hundred hours in the Meteor with only one engine failure. The armament was essentially heavier than the Meteor, the rate of turn less good and, with this one short flight and the few manoeuvres I had attempted, the amount of fuel remaining led me to believe that the consumption was much higher than the Meteor and that the Me 262 could have had only a short combat radius and would have to return to base much earlier."

Most here will be familiar with Eric Brown's assessment, but his conclusion supports Gosling's and is worth repeating.

"It was a pilots' aeroplane that had to be flown and not just heaved into the air. Basically under powered and fitted with engines sufficiently lacking in reliability to keep the adrenaline flowing, it was thoroughly exciting to fly, and particularly so in view of the lack of an ejector seat."

As for the Me 262's effect on the war, Erich Rudorffer (the last Kommandeur of I./JG 7) summed it up succinctly.

"The aircraft was the best we had at the end of the war, but we had too few of them and too few good pilots left for the jet Staffeln."

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Zyzygie said:
Settle down flyboy

Don't lower yourself to his level...
Click to expand...

No problem there - if he has an issue, he and i will deal with it

Reliability aside - asymmetric issues during landings are common in just about any twin, again this contradicts what many pilots thought about the aircraft and again I don't buy this unless you're talking about putting a pilot in the cockpit with less then 100 hours with no multi engine experience
 
The interesting vein, to me, in this thread is the engine discussion. The T-37 had very reliable engines, able to eat turkey vultures with little to no damage (or at least that was the reputation). However the idle to military power time was long enough to require "flying" the engine on certain approaches. The surging that accompanied an idle to mil movement was impressive to say the least. The T-38 had much better response, no surginging but was extremely sensitive to ice, and did not like big throttle movements when at altitude. Flameouts at altitude occurred enough to be noticeable. The early version of the Eagles motors, F-100-100s had great throttle response, but would bang, blow out, or not light. Rule of thumb, (ROT) was don't light the burners if your airspeed was below your altitude. If it blew out while fighting, you went back to mil on the engine for three seconds, then try it again. To light the burner the engine had to be stabilized in mil. Enter the F-100-220 with a FADEC on it and things changed (circa 1985). The engine became almost bullet proof in reliability. You could be in a tail slide at 45k, slam the throttles from idle to max afterburner (AB), and you would get 2 of the 5 stages of AB right now (prior to mil), and when able it would give you the rest. Very close to throttle by wire. The idle to mil time went down, thrust was up and did not degrade over the life of the engine. All good from both the driver and mechanics point of view.
My point is jet engines have required TLC until modern times.

Cheers,
Biff
 
I did foul up and had the P-80 in there when it shouldn't have been, which is the result of too many things going on (I suck at multi-tasking).

And it was the experienced 262 pilots who picked the time and place to engage Allied fighters and many did so with success. That short list I posted were not all kills based on ambush, unless one wants to assume that the Allied airforces had that many pilots who were oblivious to their surroundings. There was even one recollection by a P-47 pilot who encountered two Me262s coming head on, he stayed his course and was counting on the two Germans to break at the last second - they didn't waver and passed him on either side with perhaps 20 feet to spare. We can see from this account that the Me262 pilots were not timid.

In regards to the Jumo004, there were several advances in the engine between the 004A and the 004B that gave it better reliability and performance. While this was little comfort to the pilots and the ground crew, it does point directly back to the RLM's lack of full support until Germany's situation was dire and jet engine development and production suddenly became a full priority.

And perhaps we should be grateful that the RLM chose this path because this meant that the He280, Me262 and other types never did realize their full potential.
 
As far as the fighting ability of the Me 262, perhaps the voice of John Wray, who flew Tempests as the Wing Leader of 122 Wing, and was the only RAF pilot to destroy two Me 262s would bear some weight.

"The Me 262s we met were used principally in the bombing role. They were used to drop anti-personnel bombs on our airfield causing damage to both personnel and aircraft.
The aircraft had a very short endurance and obviously, the more power that was used, the shorter that became.Our radar picked the jets out fairly easily because the 'blip' was travelling so much faster than the others. They operated from only two airfields in our sector, Achmer and Rheine, both near Osnabruck. So far as I recall, this was due to fuel and spares problems.
We tried to deal with them in two ways. Firstly by intercepting them and secondly by patrolling their bases in order to make it difficult for them to take-off or land. German AA was both accurate and pretty lethal, and they spared no effort in defending their airfields. So the second tactic had its drawbacks!
No Allied fighter had the speed or acceleration to deal with the Me 262 in level flight and so advantage had to be taken of height and surprise. This allowed us to build up sufficient speed to get into firing range and hold the target long enough either to kill him or slow him down so that a further attack could be carried out. Unless one could get close enough without being seen, his acceleration was usually sufficient to get him away safely.
Unless one was airborne at the time and in the vicinity of the jet, interception was not easy. Their sorties rarely lasted more than some thirty minutes or so, therefore they were exposed to us over our own territory for a very short time. So, interceptions were largely a matter of chance. The American experience was possibly slightly different because they, additionally, had the jets attacking their escorted bombers and therefore offered themselves more easily as targets.
One tactic that was used - rather in desperation - was to try to make the jet 'weave' by firing at him even if he was out of range. If he knew you were firing, and particularly if tracer was used, he would often start to make evasive manoeuvres which, in turn, slowed him down. It depended on how close one was at the time and what the speed differential was.
I was also interested in the head on attacks by the '262s. The Germans were already using this form of attack with their '109s and '190s when the US fighter escorts became so large and were able to get to their target and back.
The problem was always to get far enough in front of the target to get in position to launch a successful attack, which often meant the attacker not being able to see the target, thus arriving at an angle."

An interesting postscript on the head on tactic comes from Wray's post war experience.

"After the war, we tried to perfect the head on attack, using Meteors against USAF B-29s, but we were being positioned by radar, so one was lined up and on the right course. However, the closing speed was such that the attacks were 'hairy' in the extreme, bearing in mind that this was peacetime and mid-air collisions were not acceptable! Finally, a Meteor clipped the top of the fin of a Superfort and that was the end of that. Even though little damage was done to either aircraft, I suspect bowels were loosened a bit!"

Cheers

Steve
 
Back in the day, I remember the ruggedness of the T-37 engine which you could almost fly through a waterfall without disturbing it. Also, I remember waiting forever for that engine to spool up from idle to generating some sort of thrust. I don't remember any surging, maybe I was judicious in application, maybe the engines were newer. I also remember flying final with everything hanging, speedbrake and thrust attenuators. RPM had to be very high if you had to go around. I don't remember any problems with throttle movement on the T-38, I thought the engine response was great, instant go-power, well at least compared to the T-37. I did not do any acro above 20k so I was probably not exposed to the large throttle movement at high altitude situation. The J-85 is a great engine and theT-38 is a great plane, the very aircraft I flew 46 years ago are still shooting touch and goes at Vance AFB, Oklahoma, incredible.

If I remember correctly, the F-100 was a troubled engine that seemed not to be thoroughly developed when deployed. I think many F-16 were lost due to engine failure before the AF started running engines in the F-15 before putting them in the F-16. I do know the TF-33 were great engines easily accepting abuse including exceeding EPR settings. Four years of my experience flying the C-141 in heavy use in Vietnam and Yom Kippur War support, I heard of only one engine failing in flight and it had over 9900 hr. of operating. I don't know about the performance of the J-79 or the J-75. Perhaps there are some old sticks on the site that have F-4, F-105, or F-106 time who can comment on the performance and idiosyncrasies of those engines.
 
Davparlr,

Yes, the T-38's are still flying, and they changed the intakes a few years ago (along with a glass cockpit, GPS, HUD), and new wings (again).

I too went to Enid, America for UPT. Approach to Kremlin check on RTB to the Tweet pattern (or flying up to Kagelman Aux Field, AKA Dogface), or 9 section lines north of Owen K. Garriot to find the entry point to 17R on the 38 side. 89-12.

The F-100-100 was a big leap over the J-65 (I think) in the Phantom. The early Viper losses were much more than just motor problems, and yes they got the "better" F-100 cores. A big problem was the difference between how the engineers were told the engines would be used, and how they were actually used. I know we did stuff with the Eagle that was never planned for, from split throttles, stomping on rudders, cross controlling, to smacking the stick off the HSI. In the end it always brought me home so no complaints here on either the design or the MX. Would have liked more thrust though...

Cheers,
Biff
 
 
Define "win." The Meteor pilot causing the ME 262 to disengage from attacking B-17's (preventing enemy objective) would be considered the winner. The ME pilot still downing or severely damaging B-17's, because the Meteor was ineffective, would be the winner.
In any of these theoretical engagements, other factors need to be considered. Is this a "classic" merge, does the Meteor bounce a preoccupied 262, etc.,?
As usual, these theoretical (fantasy) engagements don't hold to operational realities. An attacking ME 262 is going to be moving fast in order to retain energy for a climb out. The Meteor would be hard pressed to catch him. ME 262 flight controls were difficult to move at higher speeds, preventing quick reversal and turning into a pursuing opponent. The focus for Luftwaffe pilots was the bombers. Neither pilot would be a lone wolf. Rule #1 is always stay with your wingman. There's a greater chance that the Luftwaffe pilot, flying over home turf with his airfield nearby, in all likelihood, would be alone because his wingman separated due to mechanical problems. The Meteor pilot would be part of a flight, or an element at the minimum, over enemy territory. If a Meteor pilot runs into mechanical problems preventing mission continuance, his return to base will be accompanied by his wingman. With this in mind, the Luftwaffe pilot will be contending with two Meteors. The smart decision for the German is to disengage from the area.
 
soulezoo
Click to expand...
I couldn't help but laugh when I read you post. It certainly took me back in time. We were getting ready to launch out of Elmendorf (Alaska) after a RON (remain over night) on a very cold day. The plane looked like it was on life support with multiple ground equipment wired in and big yellow tubes pumping hot air into the crew entrance door. As we were starting the engines No. 3 (IIRC) refused to turn over, our engineer instructed ground personnel to take a rubber mallet and beat on the air valve. Once that was done, we got an OK from ground, no luck. My engineer got up and said "Let me take a look" and left. A couple of minutes later, he got on the intercom and said to give it a try. The engine responded immediately. The engineer came back grumbling "the guy was beating on the generator!" You just had to love engineers (most of the time ).
 
An extract from "Early Jet Engines and the Transition from Centrifugal to Axial Compressors" may be of some interest
"Other observers on the scene in the early 1950's made nearly the same observations as Moult and Brodie. Geoffrey GSmith, Editorial Director for the journals Flight and Aircraft Production, noted the higher efficiency and smaller frontal area of the axial-flow engines, but concluded that they were "touchy." The centrifugal units, on the other hand, cost less to develop, produce, and maintain; lasted longer; and could achieve efficiencies in the area of 80 per cent (which Smith apparently considered high enough). He also noted that the civil airliners then flying under power of gas turbine engines (both turbojet and turboprop)--the de Havilland Comet, the Avro Jetliner, and the Vickers Viscount--all used centrifugal-flow engines. An anonymous supporter of the centrifugal design denied that the axials held any advantage at all. He claimed differences in methods of measuring the efficiency accounted for the supposed superiority of the axial engine. He also asserted that engineers needed to pay less attention to frontal area and more to the greater production difficulties and higher first cost of the axial-flow engines. In his mind, it came down to a question of having a few engines of high performance versus more engines of slightly lower performance. He preferred the latter, in the belief that more research and development work on the centrifugal design would yield significant improvements.​

Here again, critics of the axial engine might not have had the benefit of knowledge of the latest developments in axial compressors. Undeniably, the centrifugal design had some strong points in its favor. The centrifugal impeller was truly simple and sturdy, and after the manufacturers solved some early production problems (the impeller posed a complex task for the machinist) it was also relatively easy to make. The intensive research which Whittle, Rolls Royce, and others conducted during the war, combined with many hundreds of hours of flying time, provided a great deal of experience. This experience made the centrifugal design more of a known quantity than the axial, hence some of the uncertainty about the latter. With the end of the war, however, continued development of the axial units exposed a great potential, and the axial-flow engine designers could argue quite forcibly for that design. ​

Critics of the axial engine's ​
  • · "touchiness" (a reference to its narrower operating range)
  • · expense
  • · difficulty in manufacturing,
  • · service life, etc.,
apparently viewed the axial engine's development as static. This was far from the truth, however, since continued work yielded significant advances. In other words, the opponents of the axial engine appeared to neglect, either out of ignorance or self-interest, the axial compressor's potential. Proponents of the axial design aired their views at the Aircraft Gas Turbine Engineering Conference sponsored by General Electric in mid-1945. Participants at the meeting in Swampscott, Massachusetts included representatives of the U.S. Army Air Forces, the U.S. Navy, the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, the U. S. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, every major American engine and airframe manufacturer, and several English manufacturers. The conference covered a wide range of topics, including the performance, installation, and control of turbojets and turboprops, and a comparison of the two types of compressors.​

Alan Howard, a General Electric engineer, discussed the characteristics of axial flow units in his paper, "Aircraft Gas Turbines With Axial Compressors."​

In a side-by-side comparison of axial and centrifugal compressors, he pointed out that the axial had
· a lower fuel consumption rate,
· a smaller frontal area
· and often a simpler installation due to its inlet design. ​

The smaller frontal area and simpler installation of the axial engine reflected an important feature of its design: the straight through flow path. Without any major bends in the flow path of the air, the designers could keep the diameter to a minimum. This not only resulted in a smaller frontal area for a given thrust, it also made the installation simpler because the intake duct could guide the air directly into the engine. On centrifugal engines, the air usually had to go around the accessory equipment clustered about the forward end of the shaft. Even without any accessories in the way, the necessity of a smooth entry into the impeller dictated that the air enter in a radially inward direction. This latter feature also prevented the centrifugal engine from taking full advantage of the ram effect (the extra compression gained when air "rammed" into an axial engine at high speeds). ​

To be fair, Howard admitted the obvious: the axial engine was longer and heavier (per pound of thrust) than the centrifugal engine, and it operated in a much narrower range. A narrower operating range implied a slower acceleration rate, a propensity to either choke or surge, and greater difficulty in starting (when the rotational speed and mass flow would be extremely low). Clearly, these characteristics could be dangerous in certain situations, whether a fighter aircraft in a dogfight or an airliner trying to avoid a mid-air collision. To counteract these hazardous tendencies, Howard suggested that designers incorporate a wider operating range by adding more stages. Unfortunately, this entailed an increase in weight, given the state of materials and methods at the time."​

Also, attached, a graph which shows that arguably the centrifugal had an edge with regard to thrust, and certainly thrust to weight ratio until at least 1947.
 

Attachments

  • Compressors.pdf
    162.6 KB · Views: 77
I will preface this post with saying that my experience with gas turbines is maintaining the RB199 which is a much later generation of engine than the ones we're discussing.

I think the Allies were right to go with centrifugal compressors to start with. There is no denying that in the longer term axial flow were going to be the one to go for in high speed applications but the centrifugal compressor was a known quantity, effectivley that is what they were using in all those superchargers and turbo chargers on the piston engines.
This freed up the engineering resources that would be needed to develop the axial flow and could now be directed at other areas.

Yes the Germans got the axial flow compressors working but how much resources were used up on that? What about the resources used in manufacturing those more complex components? Would it not have been better to put those into the turbines and combustion chambers where they were having real problems? The engines may not have been as powerful, may have had slightly higher drag but they would have been available in greater numbers and when they were needed.

How many 262's were sat on the ground waiting on engines? Surely it would have been better to maybe have less powerful engines rather than not have more powerful engines.

Did the Germans develop any centrifugal compressors? And if they did how did they compare to the allied ones? With the work Stanley Hooker did on superchargers being directly applicable I would have thought that the allies would be able to produce more efficent ones.
 
Yes. They used a centrifugal compressor for Ohain's engine. By the way it also had a radial turbine!
They were also working on a hybrid centrifugal/axial - the Heinkel Hes 011 had a "diagonal" compressor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
Number of Missions and Rotation Home
Replies
8
Views
687
GreenKnight121
Erich Hartmann and his victories and overclaims over Hungary
15 16 17
Replies
326
Views
14K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
A
Aircraft Facing Themselves (and Their Relatives)
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Dimlee
G
AAF bases at Dakar and Marakesh
Replies
2
Views
719
Grittis
G
Tropical performance of Hurricane and Spitfire
Replies
18
Views
2K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register