PDA

View Full Version : Who said the Brits were behind the times with jet engine design?



XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:19 AM
" Metropolitan-Vickers

F.2 "Beryl"
As far back as 1939, Metropolitan-Vickers, a Manchester firm that specialized in steam turbines, had been working on what would become the first British axial-flow turbojet engine. The company had been working on a turboprop design as early in as 1939 but this idea was proving overly complicated. By 1940 the success of the Whittle engines suggested a turbojet might be a better road to go down.. Work began in July 1940, on an axial-flow engine designed by Hayne Constantit at the RAE, with a nine-stage compressor, an annular combustion chamber, and a two-stage turbine, By November 1941, the F.2 was was producing 1,800 lb of thrust on the test bench, with flight tests beginning in the spring of 1943 with the engine fitted in to a Avro Lancaster and then into a modified Gloster Meteor DG204/G which had it's first flight on the 13/11/1943. The F.2 was refined into the operational "F.2/4", with a ten-stage compressor, single-stage turbine, with 3,230 lb of thrust."

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/img3/MB_F2.jpg


http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesUK.htm


" Junkers

004
Designed in 1939 by Anselm Franz the 004 was a very conservative engine, it first ran in 1940 making around 1,000 lb of thrust. In 1943 the production engine 004-B made 2,000 lb of thrust, by the end of the war over 6,000 engine had been made."

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesD.htm

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:19 AM
" Metropolitan-Vickers

F.2 "Beryl"
As far back as 1939, Metropolitan-Vickers, a Manchester firm that specialized in steam turbines, had been working on what would become the first British axial-flow turbojet engine. The company had been working on a turboprop design as early in as 1939 but this idea was proving overly complicated. By 1940 the success of the Whittle engines suggested a turbojet might be a better road to go down.. Work began in July 1940, on an axial-flow engine designed by Hayne Constantit at the RAE, with a nine-stage compressor, an annular combustion chamber, and a two-stage turbine, By November 1941, the F.2 was was producing 1,800 lb of thrust on the test bench, with flight tests beginning in the spring of 1943 with the engine fitted in to a Avro Lancaster and then into a modified Gloster Meteor DG204/G which had it's first flight on the 13/11/1943. The F.2 was refined into the operational "F.2/4", with a ten-stage compressor, single-stage turbine, with 3,230 lb of thrust."

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/img3/MB_F2.jpg


http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesUK.htm


" Junkers

004
Designed in 1939 by Anselm Franz the 004 was a very conservative engine, it first ran in 1940 making around 1,000 lb of thrust. In 1943 the production engine 004-B made 2,000 lb of thrust, by the end of the war over 6,000 engine had been made."

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesD.htm

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:20 AM
Milo said:
- Who said the Brits were behind the
- times with jet engine design?

Not me.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:30 AM
Both British and German scientists started perusing government grants for jet engines at around the same time, it's just that Germany responded quicker w/ more $$.

<center> http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/crazyPilot.gif
<font size= 2>

"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:33 AM
No one that I have seen said they were behind the times. But they were behind in getting one into a plane and in service. The Meteor went through a lot of testing. Even the turbo prop version that you have mentioned. The U.S had a B-24 they used as a test bed like the Brits did with the Lancaster. At the end of the war and especially after the war the U.S and British were taking leaps and bounds instead of baby steps. Once you have an operational engine, all you need to do is refine it. You dont have to keep inventing it anymore.

...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:34 AM
wasnt one countries design better for prospects of long term supersonic flight but had teething troubles ??

do not know the techical details

<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:39 AM
Link to American engines

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesUSA.htm


Gee RedWulf where have you been when the "German is uber" twins have been around?


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:53 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Link to American engines...

The L1000 was a neat engine. Kelly Johnson said that had the USAAF been interested, he could have produced a jet fighter in 1939.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:54 PM
Yup the Americans and Brits showed some real 'smarts'./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:11 PM
Here's a link of interest;

http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/noflash/1925-1950/whittle_history1.html

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG

Ride it like ya stole it.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:15 PM
Brits had the jet first, but unlike those crazy Germans. The US, and GB were not into testing untested aircraft out in combat. They and we were too busy producing what we had to embark on a whole different ball of wax.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:22 PM
Hopperfly22 wrote:
- Brits had the jet first, but unlike those crazy
- Germans. The US, and GB were not into testing
- untested aircraft out in combat. They and we were
- too busy producing what we had to embark on a whole
- different ball of wax.


Me-262 was a fully developed jet fighter, unlike the paper projects of the Allies.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:17 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Me-262 was a fully developed jet fighter, unlike the
- paper projects of the Allies.

Yes, but at least when we got them into the air they didn't turn into flying incinerators at the merest touch of the throttle. I bet most of those 262 jockeys were given the last rites before being strapped into those things. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That said, they were the first to go operational so all credit for that.

<center>http://www.poprivet.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Forums/Sig/ALTERNATE2.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:27 PM
LOL, another flamethread from mindless Milo ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:44 PM
Hello? Meteor?

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:54 PM
What is the matter Issy? The truth hurts./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Strange that Issy and Huckie both disappear for a few days and then both show up again on the same day and post within a short time of each other.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:41 PM
Dug this out:

Jumo 004 fitted to 262 developed 840 kg thrust. Junkers estimated it had a running life of just 25 hours between overhauls; in practice often a good deal less. I bet Willy Messerschmidt would have liked to get hold of some RR Wellands, as fitted to the Meteor - 770 kg thrust, but exactly half the weight of the Jumo and, by mid-44, cleared for 180 hours between overhauls.



Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:49 PM
The Brits won the War. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:50 PM
never heard of Campini Caproni ?

http://www.isoliti4gatti.com/Cc1.htm

Davide

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:56 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- What is the matter Issy? The truth hurts.

What truth? The Brits had a handful of experimental jet engine in test pads and prototype aircraft; the German had produced some 8000 jet engines to power their operational jet, which actually shot down enemy a/c in large numbers.

-
- Strange that Issy and Huckie both disappear for a
- few days and then both show up again on the same day
- and post within a short time of each other.
-

Strange, I never noticed that. Anyway, the IP numbers can easily checked if anybody believes that Huck and I are the same person....

apropos, I can remember that you become infamous in these boards, when you wrote on two nicknames at the same time, Chuclain Ursa and Milo Morai, CU was always licking the ars* of MM. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Yeah, post, logout, loging as CU, kiss your own *ss, logout, login as MM, express your gratitude to yourself for kissing your own butt, then do it all again.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Great fun, eh? Well, for some VERY lonely people I am afraid.

But you were stupid enough to send me cursing PMs from both of your nicks, forgetting that your name will show up... right, Mr. Lloyd Innes ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Then the whole thing become publicly knonw, and suddenly, Cuchlain Ursa ceases posting on this board. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:59 PM
Kernow wrote:
- Jumo 004 fitted to 262 developed 840 kg thrust.
- Junkers estimated it had a running life of just 25
- hours between overhauls; in practice often a good
- deal less. I bet Willy Messerschmidt would have
- liked to get hold of some RR Wellands, as fitted to
- the Meteor - 770 kg thrust, but exactly half the
- weight of the Jumo and, by mid-44, cleared for 180
- hours between overhauls.

But to give the Jumo its due, part of its weight problems
were due to the lack of strategic materials to make
a lighter version. Big chunks of steel had to substitute
for a sliver of high quality alloy. (Ok slightly purple
prose, but you get the point). Of course what a 004 could
have been like with those alloys is another matter. It is
entirely possible it would still have a poorer thrust:mass
ratio than the Welland. Alloys might well have extended
the service life of the Jumo too - but to 180 hours? Who
can tell without building one, and that Me262 new production
in the USA crashed :-(

The UK were well advanced in terms of looking a transonic
flight. The Miles M.52 (project from 1942) might well have
broken the sound barrier in 1947 as well as the X1 if the
project hadn't been canned. The M.52 was intended to use
a turbofan, interestingly. Two 1/3 scale rocket powered
versions, radio controlled, were produced, and reached
Mach 1.5 in 1948.

The M.52 and X.1 look very similar. Chuck Yeager said
that the all flying tail, used by Bell after a Bell visit
to Miles to see the M.52, was absolutely invaluable.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:26 PM
Sure, it's pretty well known the Germans had trouble with stategic materials by the end of the war. Greater access to these materials would certainly have added to the life of the engine, but if you invade just about every neighbouring country you gotta expect some drawbacks /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Did they get the all moving tailplane from Miles? I thought they discovered the need for it after the first flight of the X1 ran into control problems. I remember seeing Yeager in an interview defending the US for keeping this information from the Brits, because they US needed to guard it's lead in supersonic flight at the time. They needn't have bothered because, as you say, the Miles engineers had worked out the need for an all moving tailplane anyway, without the need for a trial flight /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The Miles programme was cancelled by some civil servant who had had access to captured German work on swept wings. Like a lot of people around here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif he thought the Germans were cleverer than anyone else, so swept wings must be the way to go. I recall he had genuine concerns for the life of the M.52 pilot. He made the best decision he could, but the flight of the X1 proved him wrong. Interestingly, the M.52 was then revived and went through the sound barrier with no problem - but in 'second place.'

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:27 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- But to give the Jumo its due, part of its weight
- problems
- were due to the lack of strategic materials to make
- a lighter version. Big chunks of steel had to
- substitute
- for a sliver of high quality alloy. (Ok slightly
- purple
- prose, but you get the point). Of course what a 004
- could
- have been like with those alloys is another matter.
- It is
- entirely possible it would still have a poorer
- thrust:mass
- ratio than the Welland. Alloys might well have
- extended
- the service life of the Jumo too - but to 180 hours?
- Who
- can tell without building one, and that Me262 new
- production
- in the USA crashed :-(


Actually what I read the Jumo 004A had an overhaul time of a bit over 200 hours (250 or so). It wasn`t restricted in use of alloys as it was a development engine, and only about 80 were built. It clearly demonstrates that the greatest problem was finding heat-resistant metals, which could stand very high temperatures. This was a new field in the 1940s, as it wasn`t required for piston engines, perhaps with the exception of turbochargers..

Since for strategical reasons alloys were restricted, the 004B was designed, and some smart new tech was tried to make up for heat-resisting material, like hollow turbine blades. Even with that, TBO was only 25-50 hours, one tenth/fifth of that what was possible with alloys. Still, I doubt caused much of a problem. An operating time of 25-50 hours equals about the same number of sorties, in which the plane would be long lost before TBO time can be a headache.. not to mention that w/o the use of alloys, a large number of replacement engines could be, and in fact, were built. It was a jet for wartime conditions, not for peacetime.. for that, the TBO time was sufficient. IIRC russians didn`t bother to make their tanks nicely, because they calculated that their lifespan on the battlefield was something like 8 hours!

The 004 was not a flawed construction IMHO, otherwise the Soviets wouldn`t use it successfully in about 2000 of their first generation fighters. Probably post-war production, when adding the neccesary alloys, was sufficient to have increase TBO time to the new requirements.


BTW, some developments of WW2 Jumos are even used today! Here`s what I found:


Junkers Jumo 022

Developed at Junkers Motorenbau in 1944,this was the final Junkers engine project before the end of the war. Based on the Jumo 012 it was designed with a gearing for a contra rotating airscrews, one engine was made before the wars end but it was never tested. In 1947 how ever the Soviets asked the Junkers design team in the USSR to develop this engine. In 1950 the first 022 was ready for static tests and given the designation TV-2 or TV-12, by 1951 the engine was making 5,050 hp and by 1955 7,650 hp as the TV-2M. At around this time there was a twined TV-2, given the designation 2TV-2F this engine made 12,000 hp.

In 1954 the designation was changed to the NK-12 and later this was developed in to the NK-16 which made 18,100 hp. The engine has been fitted into many Soviet aircraft such as the TU-91, TU-95, TU-142 which are still flying to day and must make the Junkers Jumo 022 the world longest lived jet engine design at nearly 60 years.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:36 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
-
- But you were stupid enough to send me cursing PMs
- from both of your nicks,
-

More of the typical BS from Barbi. But what else would one expect./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

CU is my brother and does not have the time, nor the inclination, to put up with the crap you spew out Barbi.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:40 PM
Milo, your Brother ?
how many of them are around in this forum ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:43 PM
Yeah, LOL, your little "brother" just suddenly disappeared after your identity was revealed. AND "he" has the same hysterical style... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Not to mention your brother suddenly appeared when Milo Morai received a nice fat ban for his trolling and flaming. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:57 PM
What ever you say Barbi. How can one post under a new nick if they have been banned? The ISP is locked out.

I don't give BJs to the Mods, like you do./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You and Huckie have the same 'hysterical' style./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Having trouble catching those ambulances? Must be with the extra free time you have.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:27 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Actually what I read the Jumo 004A had an overhaul
- time of a bit over 200 hours (250 or so). It wasn`t
- restricted in use of alloys as it was a development
- engine, and only about 80 were built. It clearly
- demonstrates that the greatest problem was finding
- heat-resistant metals, which could stand very high
- temperatures. This was a new field in the 1940s, as
- it wasn`t required for piston engines, perhaps with
- the exception of turbochargers..
-

The Germans never developed a successful turbo charger. Instead of trying to develope some 'high tech' engine like the Germans, the Brits and Amis took the practical road. That shows some smarts./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-
- Since for strategical reasons alloys were
- restricted, the 004B was designed, and some smart
- new tech was tried to make up for heat-resisting
- material, like hollow turbine blades. Even with
- that, TBO was only 25-50 hours, one tenth/fifth of
- that what was possible with alloys. Still, I doubt
- caused much of a problem. An operating time of 25-50
- hours equals about the same number of sorties, in
- which the plane would be long lost before TBO time
- can be a headache.. not to mention that w/o the use
- of alloys, a large number of replacement engines
- could be, and in fact, were built. It was a jet for
- wartime conditions, not for peacetime.. for that,
- the TBO time was sufficient. IIRC russians didn`t
- bother to make their tanks nicely, because they
- calculated that their lifespan on the battlefield
- was something like 8 hours!
-

So the a/c sits on the ground having its engine(s) changed instead of up in the air. Does lots of 'fighting' that way./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-
- The 004 was not a flawed construction IMHO,
- otherwise the Soviets wouldn`t use it successfully
- in about 2000 of their first generation fighters.
- Probably post-war production, when adding the
- neccesary alloys, was sufficient to have increase
- TBO time to the new requirements.
-

If that is the case then why put a 'crappy' British centrifugal engine in the Mig-15?



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:50 PM
axial flow engines are much more efficient than centrifugal flow ones, becuase in a centrifugal flow engine the air has to go through 2 bends of close to 90 degrees. The centrifugal flow engine is much simpler to build though because of the complexity and tolerances needed to make the intake fan. I dont know much about the german engines, but I bet their problem was with the materials used for the exhaust fan. You need a material that is easily manufactured but has an extrememly high melting point. Even today that is the main limiting factor in jet engine longevity. So I am assuming the reason the British and American engines had much better longevity was acess to better alloys.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:58 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- The Germans never developed a successful turbo
- charger. Instead of trying to develope some 'high
- tech' engine like the Germans, the Brits and Amis
- took the practical road. That shows some smarts.


Actually the opposite is true. Turbochargers were way too big and heavy to be usefull in a fighter design. Unless you think that P-38 and P-47 were good fighters, of course, everybody has the right to fool himself. A turbocharger was tried on Fw-190 but it didn't show any improvement over GM-1 equiped variants. And very importantly the heavy bulk of the turbocharger should be carried at all times, even if there was no activity at altitudes around 30000ft, where it turbochargers had an advantage. Indeed a smart Allied decision.


-- Since for strategical reasons alloys were
-- restricted, the 004B was designed, and some smart
-- new tech was tried to make up for heat-resisting
-- material, like hollow turbine blades. Even with
-- that, TBO was only 25-50 hours, one tenth/fifth of
-- that what was possible with alloys. Still, I doubt
-- caused much of a problem. An operating time of 25-50
-- hours equals about the same number of sorties, in
-- which the plane would be long lost before TBO time
-- can be a headache.. not to mention that w/o the use
-- of alloys, a large number of replacement engines
-- could be, and in fact, were built. It was a jet for
-- wartime conditions, not for peacetime.. for that,
-- the TBO time was sufficient. IIRC russians didn`t
-- bother to make their tanks nicely, because they
-- calculated that their lifespan on the battlefield
-- was something like 8 hours!
--
-
- So the a/c sits on the ground having its engine(s)
- changed instead of up in the air. Does lots of
- 'fighting' that way


Me-262 had it's engines replaced after the same number of sorties as an Bf-109. And the engine itself was very cheap and required only basic maintenance in its short life span. Also it used an non-strategic fuel. An impressive number of advantages in serviceability for such an advanced design.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/10/0301:17PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:08 PM
Congratulations to you, Isegrim.

Out of your four posts so far on this thread, one has actually been a useful contribution to the discussion at hand.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:23 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Unless you think that P-38 and P-47 were
- good fighters, of course, everybody has the right to
- fool himself.

Gee, I must be dumb because I think that the P-38 and P-47 were good fighters... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:31 PM
bazzaah2 wrote:
- Hello? Meteor?

I suspect that was directed at me. Ok, keep yer hair on. I was only having a laugh.

But if it's so important............

The first Meteor to actually fly took to the air on 5 March 1943, with Michael Daunt at the controls. It was the fifth in the prototype manufacturing sequence and was fitted with de Havilland Halford H.1 turbojets, the ancestor of the Goblin. Source: http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html

The Gloster Meteor entered service in July 1944, and saw action for the first time on 27th July, 1944 against the V1 Flying Bomb. Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmeteor.htm

Developed from a 1938 design by the Messerschmitt company, the Me 262 "Schwalbe," ("Swallow") was the world's first operational turbojet aircraft. First flown as a pure jet on July 18, 1942. On July 25, 1944, an Me 262 became the first jet airplane used in combat when it attacked a British photo-reconnaissance Mosquito flying over Munich. Source: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap11.htm

I'd dearly love for the Meteor to have been first being a Brit myself, but it appears it wasn't. Missed out by 2 days for actual combat and that was against a pilotless flying bomb. It also missed out in the first flight stakes by nearly 8 months.

Incidentally I believe the thread is entitled:
"Who said the Brits were behind the times with jet engine design?"

Jet engine design?

Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle are both recognized as being the co-inventors of the jet engine. Each worked separately and knew nothing of the other's work. Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine. Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930. Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936. However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first flew in in 1941.

Oh dear, not again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Toodle Pip



<center>http://www.poprivet.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Forums/Sig/ALTERNATE2.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:32 PM
Kernow wrote:
- Did they get the all moving tailplane from Miles?

Chuck Yeager insists they did, and other researchers
indicate that they did too.

- thought they discovered the need for it after the
- first flight of the X1 ran into control problems. I
- remember seeing Yeager in an interview defending the
- US for keeping this information from the Brits,
- because they US needed to guard it's lead in
- supersonic flight at the time.

Which is interesting, as Miles seemed to already
have had the all flying tailplane. Yeager did say
that the all flying tailplane was from Miles, there
being an agreement for sharing technology in this area.
I'll see if I can dig up the quote.


- bothered because, as you say, the Miles engineers
- had worked out the need for an all moving tailplane
- anyway, without the need for a trial flight

The specification was issued in 1942 [ correction -
spec E23/43 - presumably 1943]. They first tested the
all flying tailplane in 1943, so I presume that they
had some idea it might be useful from some sort
of high speed testing, or were just
working on a hunch. Miles producing something so
fast seems out of character, as most of their stuff
was trainers or similar light aircraft.

- The Miles programme was cancelled by some civil
- servant who had had access to captured German work
- on swept wings. Like a lot of people around here
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif he thought the Germans were
- cleverer than anyone else, so swept wings must be
- the way to go. I recall he had genuine concerns for
- the life of the M.52 pilot.

Well, it was a risky business!

- decision he could, but the flight of the X1 proved
- him wrong. Interestingly, the M.52 was then revived
- and went through the sound barrier with no problem -
- but in 'second place.'

I thought the manned M.52 never flew. I thought it
was only the radio controlled rocket-powered 1/3
scale models?

Documentation on the M.52 is scant, though. Just
some 1950s style semi-photorealistic drawings that
I've seen. Looks almost identical to the X1. This
doesn't mean that they stole the whole shape, but
perhaps that there was some convergent thinking
on requirements for transonic flight in the mid 1940s.
There's even debate on the engine that it was to use -
some say turbofan, some say a Whittle W.2/700 turbojet
engine. Since it got canned as a full sized project
in Feb 1946, who knows



Message Edited on 09/10/0306:45PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:37 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Actually what I read the Jumo 004A had an overhaul
- time of a bit over 200 hours (250 or so). It wasn`t
- restricted in use of alloys as it was a development
- engine, and only about 80 were built.

Pretty much answers my question.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:40 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- The Germans never developed a successful turbo
-- charger. Instead of trying to develope some 'high
-- tech' engine like the Germans, the Brits and Amis
-- took the practical road. That shows some smarts.
-
-
- Actually the opposite is true. Turbochargers were
- way too big and heavy to be usefull in a fighter
- design. Unless you think that P-38 and P-47 were
- good fighters, of course, everybody has the right to
- fool himself. A turbocharger was tried on Fw-190 but
- it didn't show any improvement over GM-1 equiped
- variants. And very importantly the heavy bulk of the
- turbocharger should be carried at all times, even if
- there was no activity at altitudes around 30000ft,
- where it turbochargers had an advantage. Indeed a
- smart Allied decision.
-

Umm, Hellcat? Corsair? Tigercat? Bearcat?

As for no activity at 30,000ft, you do remember the bomber stream, right, and the altitudes it tended to hang out at, right?

Or in other words, if there was nothing going on at 30,000, why was it the Germans put so much effort into aircraft such as the Ta-152, whose main claim to fame was insaine performance at 47,000?

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:44 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- Actually is the other way. Turbochargers were way to
- big and heavy to be usefull in a fighter design.
- Unless you think that P-38 and P-47 were good
- fighters, everybody has the right to fool himself. A
- turbocharger was tried on Fw-190 but it didn't show
- any improvement over GM-1 equiped variants. And very
- importantly the heavy bulk of the turbocharger
- should be carried at all times, even if there was no
- activity at altitudes around 30000ft, where it
- turbochargers had an advantage. Indeed a smart
- Allied decision.
-

Why did B&V try to make a tubocharged fighter? (Bv155) Did you forget the P-39 originally had a supercharger? The German turbochargers did not show any improvement over GM1 because they could not get them to work.

Once the GM was gone, so much for increased performance. It was also 'hard' on the engine.

How heavy was a GE turbocharger? The turbocharger in the P-38 was ~18" dia x ~18" high. How big was a supercharger? The turbocharger could maintain engine output continously, while the GM could be only be used sporatically.

Why did the Germans waste time on the Ta152H if high altitude fights were non-existant? Or even try to develope 'high fighters', which they were doing?

Actually, the 'smart' comment was regards to jet engines.

-
--
-- So the a/c sits on the ground having its engine(s)
-- changed instead of up in the air. Does lots of
-- 'fighting' that way
-
-
- Me-262 had it's engines replaced after the same
- number of sorties as an Bf-109. And the engine
- itself was very cheap and required only basic
- maintenance in its short life span. Also it used an
- non-strategic fuel. An impressive number of
- advantages for such an advanced design.
-

Does not say much for the DB engines. Lets be generous and say the Jumo had to be replaced after 50hrs. You can quote your theoretical times for TBOs but in reality the Jumo did not come near to achieving that TBO.

The Jumo 004B was still a high precision piece, that does not come cheaply. I must agree with Issy in that the life span of an engine is not that important since German a/c were making untold numbers of smoking holes in German terra firma. The trouble is that the a/c has to be replaced as well.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:50 PM
Kernow wrote:
- Dug this out:
-
- Jumo 004 fitted to 262 developed 840 kg thrust.
- Junkers estimated it had a running life of just 25
- hours between overhauls; in practice often a good
- deal less. I bet Willy Messerschmidt would have
- liked to get hold of some RR Wellands, as fitted to
- the Meteor - 770 kg thrust, but exactly half the
- weight of the Jumo and, by mid-44, cleared for 180
- hours between overhauls.


Yeah, they reach this on the test pad, early british jet engines mounted on real planes had exactly the same engine life as Jumos: 25-50 hours. Do not compare engine life of those early jets with the post war designs.

And Kernow, the difference in weight is given by the difference between the weight of the axial compressor compared to that of a centrifugal one. Junkers team chose this design because it was the only configuration capable of developement, from the beginning it was clear that centrifugals will stop somewhere around 5000lbf thrust (because of the compressor diameter). Also Jumos in nacelles gave better results than early Derwents in nacelles, even if they had roughly the same power (because of better aerodynamics of the smaller diameter nacelles). German engineers had much more ambitious plans with the jet engines than a centrifugal approach would permit, but they had to develop a simple and reliable powerplant first. They chose a simple axial design, made it as reliable as possible with the technology available at that time, and equiped 2 serial manufactured planes with it. They needed a strong confirmation of the jet engine usefulness and Me-262 gave just that. Even with those simple engines Me-262 ruled the skies.

And one more thing. It is not true that Jumo engine did not use good alloys. The Cromadur alloy used in Jumo manufacture contained chromium (but no nickel, as its predecesor Tinidur did). Even if Tinidur showed better thermic tolerances, Cromadur was much more useful because it could be welded, and ultimately blades made from it proved more reliable than those made from Tinidur.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/10/0303:38PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:06 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- MiloMorai wrote:
--- The Germans never developed a successful turbo
--- charger. Instead of trying to develope some 'high
--- tech' engine like the Germans, the Brits and Amis
--- took the practical road. That shows some smarts.
--
--
-- Actually the opposite is true. Turbochargers were
-- way too big and heavy to be usefull in a fighter
-- design. Unless you think that P-38 and P-47 were
-- good fighters, of course, everybody has the right to
-- fool himself. A turbocharger was tried on Fw-190 but
-- it didn't show any improvement over GM-1 equiped
-- variants. And very importantly the heavy bulk of the
-- turbocharger should be carried at all times, even if
-- there was no activity at altitudes around 30000ft,
-- where it turbochargers had an advantage. Indeed a
-- smart Allied decision.
--
-
- Umm, Hellcat? Corsair? Tigercat? Bearcat?


Did Corsair and Hellcat use turbos?? We're talking about turbos here.

-
- As for no activity at 30,000ft, you do remember the
- bomber stream, right, and the altitudes it tended to
- hang out at, right?


Bomber stream was between 6000 and 8000m, where german fighters had excellent performance.


- Or in other words, if there was nothing going on at
- 30,000, why was it the Germans put so much effort
- into aircraft such as the Ta-152, whose main claim
- to fame was insaine performance at 47,000?

Ta-152 was a small project meant to recognize the efforts of Kurt Tank, produced in small numbers in case such high altitude interceptor was needed. It is not very well known but Germany developed a high altitude prop bomber with a ceiling of 15000m, Hs-130, so there was a hypothetical threat. Otherways RLM made clear in the summer of '44 that all new designes aquired for production will be jet powered.


http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/henschel/hs130_2.jpg



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/10/0302:40PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:28 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- Ta-152 was a small project meant to recognize the
- efforts of Kurt Tank, produced in small numbers in
- case such high altitude interceptor was needed. It
- is not very well known but Germany developed a high
- altitude prop bomber with a ceiling of 15000m,
- Hs-129, so there was a hypothetical threat.
- Otherways RLM made clear in the summer of '44 that
- all new designes aquired for production will be jet
- powered.
-
-

Small numbers??? Is that why by the end of Aug. '45 there was to be have been 955 Ta152H a/c built? The Ta 152C was have had 870 built, with a further 465 B and E models. total 2290 a/c. pg 112 of "Focke-Wulf Ta 152.

The Hs129 could reach 15,000m??? It had a hard time to reach 5,400m.

Did you mean the Hs130? It used an auxilary piston engine to supply the boost.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:35 PM
Poprivet wrote:
- Jet engine design?
-
- Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle are both
- recognized as being the co-inventors of the jet
- engine. Each worked separately and knew nothing of
- the other's work. Hans von Ohain is considered the
- designer of the first operational turbojet engine.
- Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for
- the turbojet engine in 1930. Hans von Ohain was
- granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936.
- However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly
- in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first flew in in 1941.


However, neither one was the real inventor of the jet engine. The first one that came up with it was the romanian Henri Coanda in 1910, and the engines are based on the principle that bears his name.

This is another case of one of those disgusting strip-the-guy-of-his-merits-cuz-he-comes-from-an-unimportant-country-that-couldn't-do-anything-about-it-anyway case.

Interesting read here: http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/coanda.htm


http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:39 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Why did B&V try to make a tubocharged fighter?
- (Bv155) Did you forget the P-39 originally had a
- supercharger? The German turbochargers did not show
- any improvement over GM1 because they could not get
- them to work.

What a crap! There were 600 instalations of GM-1 on Bf-109G alone made in '43. GM-1 was also installed on Fw-190 but used in small numbers because it wasn't requested by the squadrons. Which means that they did all the work below 8000m, the altitude at which Fw-190 GM-1 could be switched on.

- Once the GM was gone, so much for increased
- performance. It was also 'hard' on the engine.

You had 30 min of GM-1 use, which is more than you had fuel for full throttle use, so there was plenty of it. The installation was light, slightly more than 100kg with tank full, and decreasing with usage. It was clearly more advantageous than a monstrously heavy turbocharger.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/10/0303:03PM by Huckebein_FW

dux-1
09-10-2003, 08:47 PM
Only one thing..
It took German scientists to put man on the moon..
S!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:55 PM
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- The Germans never developed a successful turbo
-- charger.

Huckebein_FW responded:
- Actually the opposite is true. Turbochargers were
- way too big and heavy to be usefull in a fighter
- design.

If the "opposite is true" as Huckebein claims, then he is intimating that the Germans DID develop a successful turbocharger, but decided that, for various reasons, it was not worth installing in their fighter a/c.

Beyond the reasons laid out by Huckebein, another possible explanation is that the German decision to forego use of turbocharges was that they did not foresee a need for fighter a/c optimized for operations at very high altitudes. The designers of the P47 clearly thought otherwise regarding the merits of turbo-charging.

Huckebein makes no mention about having made any comparison between the German and American turbocharger designs. So,
another possible explanation is that German turbocharger designs were perhaps not as efficient as their American counterparts. In fairness, I would also point out that turbochargers require the use of special alloys capable of sustained operation under VHT conditions. So, it also may be possible that the tubocharger option was not deemed by the Germans to have been worth the expense in terms of required strategical materials.


Huckebein_FW also wrote:
<<Unless you think that P-38 and P-47 were good fighters, of course, everybody has the right to fool himself.>>

They question here is who is really fooling whom. The logical inference which must be drawn from Huckebein's claim is that the 8th Air Force, created from scratch and deployed to Europe in a little more than one year, completely overpowered the LW day fighter homeland defence within a period of 12 months (late 1943 to late 1944) while flying allegedly inferior fighter a/c. Since the Allies did not field that "massive numerical superiority", which is always alleged, over the German homeland until the latter half of 1944, one is inevitably led to ask what other factors might have caused this result. Perhaps one such factor was that half the LW day fighter force (FW190s) offered such poor performance above 24,000 feet. Maybe a turbocharger might have been helpful after all. Horses for courses, as they say .......... ;-]



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:56 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
--
-- Ta-152 was a small project meant to recognize the
-- efforts of Kurt Tank, produced in small numbers in
-- case such high altitude interceptor was needed. It
-- is not very well known but Germany developed a high
-- altitude prop bomber with a ceiling of 15000m,
-- Hs-129, so there was a hypothetical threat.
-- Otherways RLM made clear in the summer of '44 that
-- all new designes aquired for production will be jet
-- powered.
--
--
-
- Small numbers??? Is that why by the end of Aug. '45
- there was to be have been 955 Ta152H a/c built? The
- Ta 152C was have had 870 built, with a further 465 B
- and E models. total 2290 a/c. pg 112 of "Focke-Wulf
- Ta 152.

That is an initial plan. LW was reluctant anyway to take any DB603 from twins, that 870 Ta152C planned is fantasy. Also the fact that Dora reached important production numbers instead of Ta-152, clearly indicates that there was little need for such high altitude fighters. Were there any bombers at 47000ft?


- The Hs129 could reach 15,000m??? It had a hard time
- to reach 5,400m.
-
- Did you mean the Hs130? It used an auxilary piston
- engine to supply the boost.

Does the plane in the picture look like a Hs-129?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:58 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- What a crap! There were 600 instalations of GM-1 on
- Bf-109G alone made in '43. GM-1 was also installed
- on Fw-190 but used in small numbers because it
- wasn't requested by the squadrons. Which means that
- they did all the work below 8000m, the altitude at
- which Fw-190 GM-1 could be switched on.
-

And there was 12,000, or was that 16,000, Gs made./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What did Butch tell you about GM in the Fw?

-
- You had 30 min of GM-1 use, which is more than you
- had fuel for full throttle use, so there was plenty
- of it. The installation was light, slightly more
- than 150kg with tank full, and decreasing with
- usage. It was clearly more advantageous than a
- monstrously heavy turbocharger.
-

Well, what did that monstrous turbocharger weigh?

Issy says 180kg(400lb) for a full tank.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:09 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Umm, Hellcat? Corsair? Tigercat? Bearcat?
-
- As for no activity at 30,000ft, you do remember the
- bomber stream, right, and the altitudes it tended to
- hang out at, right?

I think he meant (seems relatively clear) that
you had the weight of the supercharger whether or
not you were at high altitude. Towards the end of
the war the P47 tended to be operating at lower
alts in ground attack, but still had the SC weight.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:10 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- Did Corsair and Hellcat use turbos?? We're talking
- about turbos here.
-

Yes, the Hellcat and Corsair had turbo charers installes, as did every other aircraft with a P&W R-2800. The turbocharger was considered an integral part of the design, despite being an external unit. The primary difference between the R-2800 installations on the P-47 and the F6F and F4U was the size and altitude range of the turbo used. The P-47 used the largest, and most powerful turbocharger produced at its time of manufacture allong with the largest intercooler avaliable, allowing it to retain performance up to 30,000 ft. The F6F and F4U used smaller turbos optimised for lower altitude fighting, so they tended to lose their performance at lower altitudes.

As for the altitude benifites of turbo-chargers, they occure at much lower altitudes than people realise, I have to leave for class now, but consider this, every ten miles, the air density halves. Half the air, half the power. Go from there.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:13 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--
-- What a crap! There were 600 instalations of GM-1 on
-- Bf-109G alone made in '43. GM-1 was also installed
-- on Fw-190 but used in small numbers because it
-- wasn't requested by the squadrons. Which means that
-- they did all the work below 8000m, the altitude at
-- which Fw-190 GM-1 could be switched on.
--
-
- And there was 12,000, or was that 16,000, Gs
- made

From which 600 were deployed for high altitude work, but the threat never materialized. In fact a part of those machines with GM-1 were reconverted in '44 to MW-50 which is a low to medium boost alts system. I wonder why.


- What did Butch tell you about GM in the Fw?

Exactly what I said. GM-1 was standardized on Fw but used in small numbers because it wasn't requested.



-- You had 30 min of GM-1 use, which is more than you
-- had fuel for full throttle use, so there was plenty
-- of it. The installation was light, slightly more
-- than 150kg with tank full, and decreasing with
-- usage. It was clearly more advantageous than a
-- monstrously heavy turbocharger.

- Well, what did that monstrous turbocharger weigh?
-
- Issy says 180kg(400lb) for a full tank.


Your pal skychimp told everybody here that turbosupercharger ducting was made of steel, now Milo, estimate the weight of those ducts, I know you can do it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/10/0303:19PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:18 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
-- Did Corsair and Hellcat use turbos?? We're talking
-- about turbos here.
--
-
- Yes, the Hellcat and Corsair had turbo charers
- installes, as did every other aircraft with a P&W
- R-2800. The turbocharger was considered an integral
- part of the design, despite being an external unit.
- The primary difference between the R-2800
- installations on the P-47 and the F6F and F4U was
- the size and altitude range of the turbo used. The
- P-47 used the largest, and most powerful
- turbocharger produced at its time of manufacture
- allong with the largest intercooler avaliable,
- allowing it to retain performance up to 30,000 ft.
- The F6F and F4U used smaller turbos optimised for
- lower altitude fighting, so they tended to lose
- their performance at lower altitudes.


Neither Hellcat of Corsair production models used turbosuperchargers, check your sources again.





<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/10/0303:20PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:20 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- Your pal skychimp told everybody here that
- turbosupercharger ducting was made of steel, now
- Milo, estimate the weight of those ducts, I know you
- can do it.
-

Nope, Huckie you do it for you are the one making the claim of a monstrous turbocahrger, or are you again just flappin your gums./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- That is an initial plan. LW was reluctant anyway to
- take any DB603 from twins, that 870 Ta152C planned
- is fantasy. Also the fact that Dora reached
- important production numbers instead of Ta-152,
- clearly indicates that there was little need for
- such high altitude fighters. Were there any bombers
- at 47000ft?
-

The H did not use DB engines.

The reason the Fw190D was built was because of the total collapse start-up production and loss of production facilities for 152s.

-
-- The Hs129 could reach 15,000m??? It had a hard time
-- to reach 5,400m.
--
-- Did you mean the Hs130? It used an auxilary piston
-- engine to supply the boost.
-
- Does the plane in the picture look like a Hs-129?
-

Nope, but you said it was a Hs129 in the text./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:27 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Hopperfly22 wrote:
-- Brits had the jet first, but unlike those crazy
-- Germans. The US, and GB were not into testing
-- untested aircraft out in combat. They and we were
-- too busy producing what we had to embark on a whole
-- different ball of wax.
-
-
- Me-262 was a fully developed jet fighter, unlike the
- paper projects of the Allies.
-

The meatbox served operationally in the last year of the war they were just confined to the channel areas to prevent technology falling into the enemy hands but were used against the v1 threat.

The first engines the US produced were infact copies of an engine the uk presented to america, indeed the Mig 15 was also engined by a clone of the early British engines that we presented to them as well. when Whittle ever flew BA he never paid for a ticket as he was rightly honoured as being the designer of the Gas turbine engine, his paper on the pricipals of the engine was read by the german who built their first engine

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:31 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--
-- Your pal skychimp told everybody here that
-- turbosupercharger ducting was made of steel, now
-- Milo, estimate the weight of those ducts, I know you
-- can do it.
--
-
- Nope, Huckie you do it for you are the one making
- the claim of a monstrous turbocahrger, or are you
- again just flappin your gums.

When you're considering the weight of an aircraft piston engine you have to add the weight of the supercharger and all the piping related to it (engine without supercharger is useless, you'll get 1 atm MP at sea level, above that MP is decreasing sharply). This is why DB605 was such a great design, because it offered excellent high altitude performance with a very small supercharger. P-47 turbosupercharger installation on the other hand was indeed monstruos, basically it shaped the plane around it. The increase in performance at an altitude were there was nobody to fight with did not conpensate the decrease in performance caused by the additional weight.



- The reason the Fw190D was built was because of the
- total collapse start-up production and loss of
- production facilities for 152s.

The reason why Dora was built was because it offered better performance than Ta152H (and later better than even Ta152C) at low and medium altitudes.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/10/0303:45PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:12 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- around it. The increase in performance at an
- altitude were there was nobody to fight with did not
- conpensate the decrease in performance caused by the
- additional weight.

When the P47 was designed it was presumed that it
would be countering high altitude bombers. For a while
it was escorting high altitude bombers, and the LW
was trying to intercept them. So there were definitely
people to fight at that altitude.

When the P47 swapped to being primarily a ground attack
aircraft there might have been a case for removing some
of the supercharging apparatus, perhaps, if it wasn't
providing any engine boost at low altitudes, and the
weight was hampering performance. The P47 was relatively
slow at sea level for a late war fighter. But going in
and taking bits out would probably have been more trouble
than it was worth. I note the Tempest II did well at
altitude (460mph at around 30000, and down low - circa
410mph at SL) but I don't know if that was anything to
do with engine design. I presume it had a supercharger,
and shows that the weight of one needn't hamper low
level performance.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:46 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Does the plane in the picture look like a Hs-129?


Huck, you originally wrote:
- ... but Germany developed a high
- altitude prop bomber with a ceiling of 15000m,
- Hs-129, so there was a hypothetical threat.
- Otherways RLM made clear in the summer of '44 that
- all new designes aquired for production will be jet
- powered.

When Milo pointed out your error, you editted your post. Don't be dishonest, you'll be exposed.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:54 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- The reason why Dora was built was because it offered
- better performance than Ta152H (and later better
- than even Ta152C) at low and medium altitudes.


The reason the D-9 was placed into production was becasue it could be. The Germans almost waited too long. The Ta-152 series was not yet ready and the Mustangs were already ranging over Germany. The D-9 was an "interim" fighter pending the introduction of the Ta-152.

Huck, if you want a good book that will clear up your misconceptions about the D-9, I recommend the new Schiffer book "Focke-Wulf Fw-190 "Long Nose": An Illustrated History of the Fw-190D Series" by Dietmar Hermann.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:26 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- GM-1 was also installed
- on Fw-190 but used in small numbers because it
- wasn't requested by the squadrons. Which means that
- they did all the work below 8000m, the altitude at
- which Fw-190 GM-1 could be switched on.

One Fw-190. As Butch stated, only one squadron A series Fw-190, and A-8, received GM-1. Go back and read his post.



- You had 30 min of GM-1 use, which is more than you
- had fuel for full throttle use, so there was plenty
- of it. The installation was light, slightly more
- than 100kg with tank full, and decreasing with
- usage. It was clearly more advantageous than a
- monstrously heavy turbocharger.


Adolf Galland hated it. He stated that GM-1 tended to evaporate right out of their insulated tanks on hot days.

And in the German roll of intercepting bombers, GM-1 may have been a good performance enhancer. It would have been the wrong choice for Americans who had to operate at high altitudes for more than 30 minutes.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:34 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- And one more thing. It is not true that Jumo engine
- did not use good alloys. The Cromadur alloy used in
- Jumo manufacture contained chromium (but no nickel,
- as its predecesor Tinidur did). Even if Tinidur
- showed better thermic tolerances, Cromadur was much
- more useful because it could be welded, and
- ultimately blades made from it proved more reliable
- than those made from Tinidur.

Certain alloys may have been better than others, but that is not evidence that either was good. One of the major cuases of compressor failure in the Me-262's Jumo engines was due to blade breakage caused by inadequate alloys. This problem was never fixed, it couldn't be, as the Germans no longer had access to the resources needed.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:50 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

- Gee RedWulf where have you been when the "German is
- uber" twins have been around?

I dont know who you are referring to. I'm not sure why you think its necessary to make smart az comments to everyone. I dont care what you find or think. I also dont care if you can prove beyond any doubt that the British had jet engines capable of 30,000 lbs of thrust in 1900. Simple fact of the matter IS, Germany had a Jet powered plane in service before the Brits or the U.S did. Experimental or not, it did shoot down enemy planes. Im not uber this or that and dont take sides in anything. I look at the facts. What if scenarios, could have been, should have been or would have beens have no basis for any arguments. Does it make you that mad that Germany was flying thier jet before anyone else could get one flying that meant anything? If you cant handle people trying to be polite with a post or you cant deal with another point of view, dont post. You always have to come back with some smart az comment. All that does is reinforce any thoughts that you may very well be incapable of an intelligent conversation. Have a nice day.

...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:51 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

Certain alloys may have been better than others, but
- that is not evidence that either was good. One of
- the major cuases of compressor failure in the
- Me-262's Jumo engines was due to blade breakage
- caused by inadequate alloys. This problem was never
- fixed, it couldn't be, as the Germans no longer had
- access to the resources needed.


The main reason they used to fail was slave labour used to sabotage the fir tree roots on the blades making them fail, something that was not discovered to late on after the war, the alloy was ok i have a book about it somewhere and the engine we had during basic training in the RAF used to placard beside it explaining it....

They also used to have a VC holders name and scroll of honour on the wall too, he apparently was in a wellington bomber that was hit and an engine caught fire, this person climbed out the door and with the aid of a fireaxe kicked holes through the fabric and worked his way to the wing where he then kicked his way through the fabric out to the burning engine and attempted to put it out with the aircraft hand fire extinguisher. the fire eventually over came him and he fell of the wing and parachuted to captivity on his burning chute having lost parts of his fingers in the fire and suffering 3 degree burns to his face and body.. he earned his medal and there was a big display to him in the hangar where we had the engines on display.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:04 AM
Harry Voyager don't mix up COMPRESSORS and TURBOSSUPERCHARGERS. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Neither the F4U nor the F6F had turbos. The R-2800 is an engine with compressor loader.



"Kimura, tu as une tªte carrée comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:06 AM
blades would have broke because of creep. Metal at high temps (compared to their melting point) under axial stress will "creep" or stretch over time. Even today there is a ton of engineering in turbine blades. The ones I have seen are hollow and have holes along the trailing edges to keep them cooler. They are also mostly made of nickle based alloys which I dont think were available then.


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:50 AM
RedWulf,

those 'German is uber' twins have posted in this thread./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif 'Nice'(???) post as well./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

There was no need to rush the development of Allied jets. The piston a/c were doing a good job of the German jets./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Mad because the Germans had half baked jets, not at all./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Who cares? Not me, but some put BIG emphasis on the fact./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Better talk to Issy about being polite or do you need glasses?

Don't talk to me about could have been, might have been, etc.. Say that to the 'twins'.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/10/0308:04PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:08 AM
germany and the bits may have made the first jets but the us still made the best jet of WW2 (p-80), however the germans did have some awsome stuff on the drawing board, wonder what would of happened if the war lasted 1 more year



Message Edited on 09/10/0306:09PM by ST_Spyke

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:14 AM
cuski wrote:
- However, neither one was the real inventor of the
- jet engine. The first one that came up with it was
- the romanian Henri Coanda in 1910, and the engines
- are based on the principle that bears his name.

Quite right cuski, and that's a very interesting read. There is a difference, however, between the actual inventor of a device and those who are sometimes more vociferous and adept at marketing (I know a good thing when I see it syndrome) and ultimately get the recognition for it.

The section of my post that you quote does say that the two gentlemen are RECOGNIZED as being the co-inventors of the jet engine. It does not say that they categorically and indisputably were the inventors.

Recognized by who exactly? How about the propaganda offices of the respective countries once they wiped the egg from their faces and realised the thing actually worked and had military potential after all?

Cheerio

<center>http://www.poprivet.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Forums/Sig/ALTERNATE2.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:15 AM
I agree that the Luft46 designs look amazing, but it's worth considering that had the Germans not spent so much of their limited talent and resources making up interesting but unmanufacturable aircraft, the war might have really lasted another year :>



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:57 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- Neither Hellcat of Corsair production models used
- turbosuperchargers, check your sources again.
-

It appears that they had did have two stage superchargers, rather than turbo-superchargers. My appologies, everything I have read on the R-2800 up to this point indicated that it was typically installed in combination with a gas turbine driven compressor, rather than a mechanical compressor.

Unfortunatly, the terminology used is often very imprecise. In several sources, I have seen it stated, *at the same time*, that the engine used a two stage compressor, and was turbosupercharged. Obviously, both are not correct in the same aircraft.

I will point out that a turbocharging system is little heavier than a comparable supercharging system. The compressor turbines are of the same mass, and both require the same level of intercooling. The only point where the turbocharger out weighs the supercharger is with its power turbine, and that is not by a large margine. Both of them require the same duct work for the intake gasses, and if the turbo charger is mounted close to the engine, it does not require long exhaust ducting. In favor of the turbo, is that it saps only a fraction of the power from the engine that a compairable supercharger does. The Turbo taps power that is simply wasted in other systems.

Really, most of the mass on the P-47 came from the liberal use of steel in its construction, and general over building of its structure. Where the 109 used a single peice aluminum tail structure, with internal folds, the P-47 used bulkheads with 3 1/2" wide E section steel beams for cross ties.

The fuselage was rigid enough that high speed impacts would not force the fuselage out of the impact crater. Typical vertical or near vertical impacts at 600mph and over result in the tail section shattering the fuselage, and forcing fuselage debries out of the impact crater. The structural integrity of the Thunderbolt was such that an impact at 600mph would leave a recognisable fuselage, usually still attached to the tail section. By constrast, most modern aircraft, if they impact the ground at over 500mph, you will see a tail, burried in a hole surrounded by fist sized debries. One of my coworks at my last job was studying to be a crash investigator. You learn all sorts of interesting things from one of those.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:01 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- I agree that the Luft46 designs look amazing, but
- it's worth considering that had the Germans not
- spent so much of their limited talent and resources
- making up interesting but unmanufacturable aircraft,
- the war might have really lasted another year :>

I'm not really sure how much the development of that
stuff was really a drain on the German war effort.
How much actual production force was required to prototype
the Me262, Ar234, V2, P1101, etc? Or in other words, how many more 190D9s could have been produced if all that
effort had been dedicated to 190D9s, etc, rather than
the V2, or the P.1101, etc? I don't suppose to know
the answer, but it's a question worth asking.

In terms of industrial production, Germany was never
on a particularly good footing, and had difficulties
keeping up with combat losses and spares requirements
from 1939. Production ramped up by a huge amount, but
then so did losses, and basically production never
massively exceeded those losses.

Conversely, the USA could easily produce more material
than it needed, and could afford to export to the UK
and USSR, help equip the Free French, and so on. There
were some points - in 1942, and ships in 1944, when
demand or losses outstripped supply, or in the requirement
to coordinate attacks in Europe and the Pacific to make
best use of available landing craft, but on the whole
supply wasn't a problem. I remember reading testimony from
an 88 battery commander who complained that they run out
of shells faster than the Allies ran out of tanks... And
in those sort of situations quality matters less than
quantity.

Germany could not really produce in sufficient quantity
to defeat the Allies, and by 1944 the situation with regard
to personnel was also more desperate. (E.g. the SS going
on a recruiting drive over Europe and further afield). So
this meant that Germany required something of vastly superior quality to make up for the lack of quantity.
I don't know if the drive for quality (the new batch of
designs such as the Ta183, P.1101, etc, etc) were a
distraction in terms of taking away production from
where it was needed. If the personnel were ultimately not
there to pilot huge hordes of 190D9s, then huge hordes
of 190D9s would just be targets in factory staging areas
for allied ground attacks, as they sometimes turned out
to be anyway due to fuel and transport shortages.

It seems that Hitler et al believed their own propaganda
suggesting it would all be over by the end of 1942 in
a Nazi victory and finally geared up for war production
by the time the writing was on the wall for the regime.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:20 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

-
- The Germans never developed a successful turbo
- charger.

Wrong, they did develop TSCs, but found them massively impractical for fighters. Adding a TSC means adding at least 500 lbs of plus weight, not to mention the weigth that goes into strenghtening the structure..

Why build a 7-ton monster plane around a huge turbo ducting, if you could build a plane with the same high alt. performance at 3 tons ?


-
- Instead of trying to develope some 'high
- tech' engine like the Germans, the Brits and Amis
- took the practical road. That shows some smarts.
-

LOL, more practical? What is more practical in having NO jet fighters fighting at all? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Speaking about practical, one just has to mention the Napier Sabre, an overly complicated, unreliable monster, with no advantages whatsoever compared to conventional Vee engine designs when built-in a fighter. Look at Typhoon vs, FW 190. The latter eats the former alive.

Or the Merlin series. Just like before, instead going practical, increasing volume, the Brits wasted lotsof research on increasing MAP only... result: engines that produced good powers, at extreme fuel consumption rates, which requested more fuel to be added, increasing weight...



-
- So the a/c sits on the ground having its engine(s)
- changed instead of up in the air. Does lots of
- 'fighting' that way.

Certainly a lot more than an aircraft that does not even exists in practical operational use. Like British and American jet fighters. Having 160 jets is better than having 10 that doesn`t fight, or 2 that did not arrived yet.

Personally, I doubt that the half an hour time required after every 30 or so (=about 1 month of operational service) jet sorties to replace the Jumos to a new, hampered German jet operations at all.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:58 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
-
- Wrong, they did develop TSCs, but found them
- massively impractical for fighters. Adding a TSC
- means adding at least 500 lbs of plus weight, not to
- mention the weigth that goes into strenghtening the
- structure..
-
- Why build a 7-ton monster plane around a huge turbo
- ducting, if you could build a plane with the same
- high alt. performance at 3 tons ?
-

Why were the Germans working on the massive Bv155 right up to the last days of WW2, when Germany finally unconditionally surrenderd? If the TSC was so good, then why was the TKL 15 in the Bv155?


Compared to the superb GE turbo chargers, German models were 'no goes'.

-
-
- LOL, more practical? What is more practical in
- having NO jet fighters fighting at all?
-

Did the Allies require jets to defeat the Germans? NOPE./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-
[snip]

Not worth a reply.

-
-
- Certainly a lot more than an aircraft that does not
- even exists in practical operational use. Like
- British and American jet fighters. Having 160 jets
- is better than having 10 that doesn`t fight, or 2
- that did not arrived yet.
-

Like I said, the Allies did not need their own jets to remove German a/c from the skies. The prop jobbies did that quite effectively all by themselves./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-
- Personally, I doubt that the half an hour time
- required after every 30 or so (=about 1 month of
- operational service) jet sorties to replace the
- Jumos to a new, hampered German jet operations at
- all.
-
-

Then you is wrong./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Maybe if a F1 pitcrew was used./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Bet that is faster than some modern a/c especially designed for ease of maintainance.

So the 262s could only fly once every 2 days and then it was only one flight. Or to put it another way, one 1 hr flight every day > lots of combat there./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That is not very effective./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:40 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Why were the Germans working on the massive Bv155
- right up to the last days of WW2, when Germany
- finally unconditionally surrenderd? If the TSC was
- so good, then why was the TKL 15 in the Bv155?
-


Why don`t you tell us? We would be richer with another idiotic theory...


-
- Compared to the superb GE turbo chargers, German
- models were 'no goes'.
-

Sure, Briddy is one real expert of all that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


--
-- LOL, more practical? What is more practical in
-- having NO jet fighters fighting at all?
-
-
- Did the Allies require jets to defeat the Germans?
- NOPE.
-

Sure they didn`t, after all, the Allies won by numbers, never by quality. No wonder their losses were so much higher..



--
- [snip]
-
- Not worth a reply.

Sure it doesn`t, after all, we all seen how inpractical British aero engine development was in regards of the Sabre and Merlin..

Germany did a much better job with it`s DB 60x series, with simple, reasonable improvements in boost, compression ratio, volume and supercharging capacity. Result: same performance at less weight, much less consumption and cheaper production.


-
--
--
-- Certainly a lot more than an aircraft that does not
-- even exists in practical operational use. Like
-- British and American jet fighters. Having 160 jets
-- is better than having 10 that doesn`t fight, or 2
-- that did not arrived yet.
--



- Like I said, the Allies did not need their own jets
- to remove German a/c from the skies. The prop
- jobbies did that quite effectively all by
- themselves.


Yep, loosing some 160 000 airmen in exchange for 7200 German fighter pilots.

If that result was good enough for them, they must have been like Uncle Ho, any high loss rate was acceptable, life was considered of no value.



--
-- Personally, I doubt that the half an hour time
-- required after every 30 or so (=about 1 month of
-- operational service) jet sorties to replace the
-- Jumos to a new, hampered German jet operations at
-- all.
--
--



- Then you is wrong. Maybe if a F1 pitcrew
- was used.
- Bet that is faster
- than some modern a/c especially designed for ease of
- maintainance.

I bet you have never seen any modern jet turbine of a modern jet fighter... it`s a BIT larger than those jumos, inside the fusalge. In any case, even those cn be replaced very quickly, and it`s not surprising the Germans could replace a jet nacelle so quickly, if it was designed this way, and the only thing to do was to 'unplug' and remove it. An advantage of wing mounted jet nacelles.



- So the 262s could only fly once every 2 days and
- then it was only one flight. Or to put it another
- way, one 1 hr flight every day > lots of combat
- there.

I wonder in what ways could you arrive at this laughable statements that Me 262s could only fly once in 2 days, LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Certainly Allied aircrews would have liked it this way.




http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:53 PM
http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:24 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- Why were the Germans working on the massive Bv155
-- right up to the last days of WW2, when Germany
-- finally unconditionally surrenderd? If the TSC was
-- so good, then why was the TKL 15 in the Bv155?
--
-
-
- Why don`t you tell us? We would be richer with
- another idiotic theory...
-

Typical reply from Barbi when he can't answer a question.

-
--
-- Compared to the superb GE turbo chargers, German
-- models were 'no goes'.
--
-
- Sure, Briddy is one real expert of all that.
-

With over 300,000 produced GE had to be doing something right./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-
--
-- Did the Allies require jets to defeat the Germans?
-- NOPE.
--
-
- Sure they didn`t, after all, the Allies won by
- numbers, never by quality. No wonder their losses
- were so much higher..
-

Shows how dumb the Germans were. Trying to win on imperfected technology alone.

-
-
-- Like I said, the Allies did not need their own jets
-- to remove German a/c from the skies. The prop
-- jobbies did that quite effectively all by
-- themselves.
-
-
- Yep, loosing some 160 000 airmen in exchange for
- 7200 German fighter pilots.
-

Of ~28,000 that trained as fighter pilots LESS than 1400 LW pilots survived til May 1945. Where are your numbers for the other LW forces. Here Barbi goes with his twisting exagerations > can't compare 'apples to apples'.


-
-
-
-- Then you is wrong. Maybe if a F1 pitcrew
-- was used.
-- Bet that is faster
-- than some modern a/c especially designed for ease of
-- maintainance.
-
- I bet you have never seen any modern jet turbine of
- a modern jet fighter... it`s a BIT larger than those
- jumos, inside the fusalge. In any case, even those
- cn be replaced very quickly, and it`s not surprising
- the Germans could replace a jet nacelle so quickly,
- if it was designed this way, and the only thing to
- do was to 'unplug' and remove it. An advantage of
- wing mounted jet nacelles.
-

You loose./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Lets see a tech doc with the Jumo engine change time on the 262.


-
-
-- So the 262s could only fly once every 2 days and
-- then it was only one flight. Or to put it another
-- way, one 1 hr flight every day > lots of combat
-- there.
-
- I wonder in what ways could you arrive at this
- laughable statements that Me 262s could only fly
- once in 2 days, LOL.
-
-

LOL Barbi, you are the one that said 30hrs. Avg. 30 days in a month > 30 1 hr flights each day. Or a 2 hr flight every other second day. dah!!!

PS. Issy if you want to 'talk' about piston engines start a new thread. This subject of this thread is JET engines.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/11/0303:36PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 06:31 PM
I will point out that Gas Turbine powered compressors are the only chargers left in widesprade use in General Aviation now.

Additionally, a small failure in an anti-detonate injection system, will almost immediately send the engine into detonation, and at very high power settings can typically destroy the engine before the pilot can respond to the system's failure. A fuel failure, by contrast, merely shuts down the engine, and a turbo failure, simply drops the manifold pressure.

Judging from what I've seen of the 190, and it's engine arangement, the primary volume problem it had with the turbocharger installation was that they also had to install an intercooler as well. Intercoolers are practically required on any high compression system, just from the basic laws of physics. (Half the volume without reducing the energy, you get double the heat.) If that turbocharer system they installed didn't include and intercooler, then the German turbocharger was roughly three times as big as the GE turbo used in the P-47. All that volume in the tail was ducting and intercooler. The turbocharger itself was completely contained in that small knot under the tail. Right here:

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TwDPAjIYZr*I*5tXep9Sex8LSOCg2FKhGzYrBuTwLzMoopslS u*66Ktb6eQAdoktIWa6rlsySBsr1TxM4KSZ3xlMt9UW0m5BM05 VXssZVFWclvOpAQg1yA/P-47%20Turbo.jpg?dc=4675438373048598858

That little red bock roughly outlines the turbocharger. The rest of the tail is taken up by a giant intercooler. Why? because compressing air at 30,000ft to nearly twice sea level air pressure can push the air temperature upwards of 260F or 130 C for you metric folks. That's hot enough to boil fuel, and that's just from compression, that's not from heat generated by turbine friction, or anything else, just compressing the air more than fourfold.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:42 PM
Sir, I believe you are living in some sort of fantasy world. Apart from a couple of 'tongue in cheek' responses, I shall endeavour to let others, more knowledgeable in this area, speak for me.

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
--- LOL, more practical? What is more practical in
--- having NO jet fighters fighting at all?
--

280 wartime Meteor MkIIIs were produced. As far as I can tell only one sqn (1 Sqn) was equipped with them during the war: more than none.


- Sure it doesn`t, after all, we all seen how
- inpractical British aero engine development was in
- regards of the Sabre and Merlin..

No we haven't seen that, you just told us the Merlin was rubbish for pushing MAP development. I agree that the Sabre wasn't a particularly good engine.


- Germany did a much better job with it`s DB 60x
- series, with simple, reasonable improvements in
- boost, compression ratio, volume and supercharging
- capacity. Result: same performance at less weight,
- much less consumption and cheaper production.

Well slave labour is bound to be cheaper /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- If that result was good enough for them, they must
- have been like Uncle Ho, any high loss rate was
- acceptable, life was considered of no value.

"In our unit, flying the Me 262, we had some pilots with only about a hundred hours total flying time. They were able to take-off and land the aircraft, but I had the definite impression that they were little use in combat. It was almost a crime to send them into action with so little training. These young men did their best, but they had to pay a heavy price for their lack of experience."

"Our 'ground school' lasted one afternoon. We were told of the peculiarities of the jet engine, the danger of flaming out at high altitude, and their poor acceleration at low speeds. The vital importance of handling the throttles carefully was impressed on us, lest the engines caught fire. Yet we were not permitted to look inside the cowling at the jet engine itself - we were told they were very secret and we did not need to know about them!"
Walther Hagenah

Sounds like they weren't the only ones who thought life was of little value then.


- Personally, I doubt that the half an hour time
- required after every 30 or so (=about 1 month of
- operational service) jet sorties to replace the
- Jumos to a new, hampered German jet operations at
- all.

Then you are deluding yourself, because hampered they were. Don't take my word for it.

"By the time I reached [the Gruppe] there were insufficient spare parts and insufficient spare engines; there were even occasional shortages of J-2 fuel. I am sure all of these existed and production was sufficient, but by that stage of the war the transport system was so chaotic that things often failed to arrive at front line units". Walther Hagenah.


-- So the 262s could only fly once every 2 days and
-- then it was only one flight. Or to put it another
-- way, one 1 hr flight every day > lots of combat
-- there.
-
- I wonder in what ways could you arrive at this
- laughable statements that Me 262s could only fly
- once in 2 days, LOL. Certainly Allied
- aircrews would have liked it this way.

You are right, it is laughable. One day in four or five would seem closer to the truth:

Kommando Nowotny re-equipped with Me 262 fighters fitted with production engines, and reached a strength of 23 aircraft at the end of September. The unit was declared ready for operations and moved to Achmer and Hesepe in northwest Germany to operate in the interceptor role.

Although the production Jumo 004s were somewhat more reliable than their predecessors, they still gave a lot of trouble. Also, the Me 262's airframe had its share of "bugs" to be ironed out. One serious problem stemmed from the use of synthetic and reclaimed rubber, all that was available, in the tyres fitted to the aircraft. The jet fighter touched down at around 100 knots, much faster than other combat types. A heavy landing would cause a tyre to blowout, followed by a departure from the runway which often led to undercarriage damage.

On 7 October 1944 Kommando Nowotny scrambled five Me 262s - the <u>largest number it had yet sent into combat</u> - to engage American bomber formations making for targets in central Germany. Cruising over Achmer at 15,000 feet in a P-51 Mustang, Lieutenant Urban Drew of the 361st Fighter Group watched a pair of jet fighters commence their take-off runs. He waited until the enemy planes were airborne, then rolled his fighter on its back and went down in a high-speed dive. With his wingman following, Drew rapidly caught up with the Me 262s and shot down both before they reached fighting speed. Another jet fighter was lost during a separate action with escort fighters. Thus the first multi-aircraft action by Kommando Nowotny cost three Me 262s destroyed and one pilot killed, in return for three American bombers shot down.

Worse followed. On 8 November Walter Nowotny was caught up in a low level dogfight with Mustangs and for reasons
that are unclear his Me 262 dived into the ground. The famous pilot was killed.

Generalmajor Adolf Galland happened to be on an inspection visit to Achmer that day, to determine why the Me 262s had not achieved more. The fighter commander saw enough to realise that Nowotny had been given an impossible task. The latter was expected to introduce a completely new and revolutionary fighter type into combat, in an area where the enemy held almost total air superiority. In the unit the level of training was low, <u>serviceability of the jet fighters was poor and rarely could more than five sorties be flown in a day.</u> Galland ordered the Kommando Nowotny to withdraw to Lechfeld for further training, and for the aircraft to be modified to overcome many of their defects.

Allied aircrews didn't need to be overly concerned by the 262:

Me 262s flew 58 sorties that day (31 Mar 45), the greatest number ever. On the available evidence it appears they shot down 14 bombers and 2 fighters, for a loss of four of their number. That victory score would mark the high-water-mark of achievement for the Me 262 fighter units, and it would never be surpassed. Yet, even on this most successful of days, the losses they inflicted amounted to less than one percent of the huge Allied forces over Germany. The effect was no more than a pinprick.

To sum-up the career of the Me 262:

By the end of April 1945 more than 1,200 Me 262s had been accepted by the Luftwaffe. Many of these were destroyed on the ground. A few cold statistics will serve to highlight just what this huge industrial effort on the part of the Germans achieved:

Greatest number of Me 262s with front-line units (9 April 1945): about 180
Greatest number of Me 262 fighter sorties in a single day (31 March 1945): 58
Greatest number of Me 262 victories in a single day (31 March 1945): 16
Greatest number of Me 262 fighter-bomber sorties in a single day (14 Feb 1945): 55

The figures are not particularly impressive, yet in each case they mark the best days in the Me 262's combat career. For the rest of the time the figures for aircraft deployed, sorties flown and victories achieved were even lower. The fighting power of an air force is governed not by the number of planes it has, but by the number of planes it can support effectively in action. <u>The most important single factor constraining the employment of the Me 262 in operational service was the short running life of
the Jumo 004 turbojet.</u> Despite the valiant efforts by Junkers engineers, even by the spring of 1945 the Jumo 004 was not a fully reliable unit. Some post-war writers have criticised Luftwaffe leaders for failing to get the Me 262 into production early enough. Yet if anything, they initiated production of the aircraft rather too early. In the spring of 1944 Me 262 airframes were coming off the
assembly lines before the engine to power them was ready for release for mass production.

Modern readers might care to marvel at the pace at which the Germans pushed ahead with their programme to bring the
revolutionary new aircraft type into action:

First flight of Me 262 using jet power (a failure) March 1942
First successful flight of Me 262 on jet power alone July 1942
Me 262 ordered into large scale production August 1943
First Me 262 unit operational July 1944
First large-scale (50 plus sortie) operation by Me 262s February 1945
Thousandth Me 262 delivered March 1945

Even today we might find it difficult to match such a time scale! As a weapon that might have changed the course of the war the Messerschmitt 262 was not a missed opportunity, it was an impossible dream.

The quotes are taken from an article out of an air power magazine published on the RAF's website. It provides a useful corrective to many of the oft quoted myths about the 262. I have posted the link on a couple of occasions.

Isengrim sir, you have implied that the only technical impediment to Me 262 operations was the need for a half hour engine change once a month. I believe I have shown that the best which was ever achieved was a sortie rate of 1 sortie per 3 jets per day. The major reason for this poor serviceability rate was the Jumo 004 engine. You are welcome to stick to your unsubstantiated claims after reading this, but I believe most intelligent readers will conclude that you have not researched your case at all.

Kernow
249 IAP


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:49 PM
Harry,

Interesting point. I did recently read that the later models of Corsair featured a supercharger/intercooler package nearly as large as the P&W 2800 engine itself.

It might also be interesting to explore what design pedigrees, if any, might be traced between the WW1 period German BMW and Mercedes "high altitude" in-line engines and their DB6XX powerplant series of the WW2 period. IIRC the WW1 hi-alt engines featured very large displacements based upon long stroke geometry; the DB series featured a very large relative displacement as well, about 50 pct greater than its Merlin counterpart, to produce the same levels of power. A long stroke would produce greater relative compression, presumably with less reliance upon the supercharger component.

If you are interested, the NACA web archive has a full technical report on the BMW DIIIa high-altitude engine, which was fitted to the D.VIIF in later 1918 to produce perhaps the finest fighter a/c of the WW1 period.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:47 PM
Quite rarely I had the occasion to see such a pile of manure colected in a single post (except the from the master trolls of this forum of course, Skychimp and milo)


Kernow wrote:
- 280 wartime Meteor MkIIIs were produced. As far as
- I can tell only one sqn (1 Sqn) was equipped with
- them during the war: more than none.

1 Sqn?? oh boy, and what was the use of this squadron? Meteor until MkIV was barely flyable, performance was inferior to piston aircrafts, and cockpit was filled with warnings for the pilot to not attempt any aerobatic maneuver. Practically all early Meteors could do was take off and land (with difficulties).


-- Sure it doesn`t, after all, we all seen how
-- inpractical British aero engine development was in
-- regards of the Sabre and Merlin..
-
- No we haven't seen that, you just told us the Merlin
- was rubbish for pushing MAP development. I agree
- that the Sabre wasn't a particularly good engine.

pushing MP instead of enlarging the capacity meant a poor fuel efficiency: Merlins for 1525hp produced had a fuel consumption of 720l/hr, DB605A for 1550hp had a fuel consumption of 480l/hr. Merlin was an outdated and fuel inefficient design.


-- Germany did a much better job with it`s DB 60x
-- series, with simple, reasonable improvements in
-- boost, compression ratio, volume and supercharging
-- capacity. Result: same performance at less weight,
-- much less consumption and cheaper production.
-
- Well slave labour is bound to be cheaper

What a tasteless joke. DB605 was cheaper from the materials used to the manufacturing process involved.


-- If that result was good enough for them, they must
-- have been like Uncle Ho, any high loss rate was
-- acceptable, life was considered of no value.
-
- "In our unit, flying the Me 262, we had some
- pilots with only about a hundred hours total flying
- time. They were able to take-off and land the
- aircraft, but I had the definite impression that
- they were little use in combat. It was almost a
- crime to send them into action with so little
- training. These young men did their best, but they
- had to pay a heavy price for their lack of
- experience."

- Sounds like they weren't the only ones who thought
- life was of little value then.

Most JG7 pilots were top class. There were inexperienced pilots too, but much less than in other german units at the end of war. Also their chance for survival was better in combat than in any other unit.



-- Personally, I doubt that the half an hour time
-- required after every 30 or so (=about 1 month of
-- operational service) jet sorties to replace the
-- Jumos to a new, hampered German jet operations at
-- all.
-
- Then you are deluding yourself, because hampered
- they were. Don't take my word for it.
-
- "By the time I reached [the Gruppe] there were
- insufficient spare parts and insufficient spare
- engines; there were even occasional shortages of J-2
- fuel. I am sure all of these existed and production
- was sufficient, but by that stage of the war the
- transport system was so chaotic that things often
- failed to arrive at front line units". Walther
- Hagenah.

Difficulties with spare parts were everywhere in LW in the last weeks of war. It was not specific to Me-262 units.



--- So the 262s could only fly once every 2 days and
--- then it was only one flight. Or to put it another
--- way, one 1 hr flight every day > lots of combat
--- there.
--
-- I wonder in what ways could you arrive at this
-- laughable statements that Me 262s could only fly
-- once in 2 days, LOL. Certainly Allied
-- aircrews would have liked it this way.
-
- You are right, it is laughable. One day in four or
- five would seem closer to the truth:
-
- Kommando Nowotny re-equipped with Me 262 fighters
- fitted with production engines, and reached a
- strength of 23 aircraft at the end of September. The
- unit was declared ready for operations and moved to
- Achmer and Hesepe in northwest Germany to operate in
- the interceptor role.

What a crap. At the time of Kommando Nowotny operations Me-262 was not yet operational. Saying that defects of non-operational fighters appeared on operational ones is just a baseless claim and nothing else. Tell us the number of JG7 Me-262 lost in defective gear accidents. You don't know? then you're just flapping your gumms, to quote a classic on this forum.

Bringing the defects found and solved during testing of an ww2 aircraft is just a sad attempt of trolling. Tell us about the deffects of operational aircraft.



- Allied aircrews didn't need to be overly concerned
- by the 262:
-
- [i]Me 262s flew 58 sorties that day (31 Mar 45), the
- greatest number ever. On the available evidence it
- appears they shot down 14 bombers and 2 fighters,
- for a loss of four of their number. That victory
- score would mark the high-water-mark of achievement
- for the Me 262 fighter units, and it would never be
- surpassed. Yet, even on this most successful of
- days, the losses they inflicted amounted to less
- than one percent of the huge Allied forces over
- Germany. The effect was no more than a pinprick.

Yes, big deal, USAAF could take the blow. USAAF didn't care in any way about the crews lost, or the cost in civilian lifes of an inutile campaign.


- To sum-up the career of the Me 262:
-<..>
- The figures are not particularly impressive, yet in
- each case they mark the best days in the Me 262's
- combat career. For the rest of the time the figures
- for aircraft deployed, sorties flown and victories
- achieved were even lower. The fighting power of an
- air force is governed not by the number of planes it
- has, but by the number of planes it can support
- effectively in action. <u>The most important single
- factor constraining the employment of the Me 262 in
- operational service was the short running life of
- the Jumo 004 turbojet.</u> Despite the valiant
- efforts by Junkers engineers, even by the spring of
- 1945 the Jumo 004 was not a fully reliable unit.
- Some post-war writers have criticised Luftwaffe
- leaders for failing to get the Me 262 into
- production early enough. Yet if anything, they
- initiated production of the aircraft rather too
- early. In the spring of 1944 Me 262 airframes were
- coming off the
- assembly lines before the engine to power them was
- ready for release for mass production.

Who's the author of this masterpiece?



- Modern readers might care to marvel at the pace at
- which the Germans pushed ahead with their programme
- to bring the
- revolutionary new aircraft type into action:
-
- First flight of Me 262 using jet power (a failure)
- March 1942
- First successful flight of Me 262 on jet power alone
- July 1942

First flight with Jumo004 was succesful.


- Me 262 ordered into large scale production August
- 1943
- First Me 262 unit operational July 1944
- First large-scale (50 plus sortie) operation by Me
- 262s February 1945
- Thousandth Me 262 delivered March 1945
-
- Even today we might find it difficult to match such
- a time scale! As a weapon that might have changed
- the course of the war the Messerschmitt 262 was not
- a missed opportunity, it was an impossible
- dream.
-
- The quotes are taken from an article out of an air
- power magazine published on the RAF's website. It
- provides a useful corrective to many of the oft
- quoted myths about the 262. I have posted the link
- on a couple of occasions.


Oh this is the impartial source you found?? Quote only the defects and say nothing why it was such a big step forward in fighter design. Yeah, great quality information.



- Isengrim sir, you have implied that the only
- technical impediment to Me 262 operations was the
- need for a half hour engine change once a month. I
- believe I have shown that the best which was ever
- achieved was a sortie rate of 1 sortie per 3 jets
- per day. The major reason for this poor
- serviceability rate was the Jumo 004 engine. You
- are welcome to stick to your unsubstantiated claims
- after reading this, but I believe most intelligent
- readers will conclude that you have not researched
- your case at all.


The only impediment for Me-262 was the general lack of fuel LW faced at the end of war. Jumo004 was cheaper than its piston counterparts and Me262 needed its engines replaced at almost the same number of missions as Bf-109. Low serviceability myth is just idiotic allied propaganda, trying to find excuses for its own technological backwardness.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:52 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- It might also be interesting to explore what design
- pedigrees, if any, might be traced between the WW1
- period German BMW and Mercedes "high altitude"
- in-line engines and their DB6XX powerplant series of
- the WW2 period. IIRC the WW1 hi-alt engines featured
- very large displacements based upon long stroke
- geometry; the DB series featured a very large
- relative displacement as well, about 50 pct greater
- than its Merlin counterpart, to produce the same
- levels of power. A long stroke would produce greater
- relative compression, presumably with less reliance
- upon the supercharger component.


What's the big deal about this? Merlin was a Volkswagen engine put to do a Ferrari work. They squeezed the last drop of power from this design instead of move on to a larger displacement engine. I wrote above the comparative fuel consumption, Merlin consumed 50% more fuel in high regimes.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/11/0303:52PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:15 PM
Huckie, how can a unit (KW) that flies combat missions not be called operational?

Even the bomber Kommando was flying combat missions.

As for the Merlin, it still got the job done, powering a/c that swept the LW from the air. It was doing such a good job that the 36L Griffon was not pushed ahead.

Want to 'talk' about piston engines START a NEW THREAD, this one is for JET engines.

PS. For those that would like some German documentation on the DB605 engines http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/11/03 05:44PM by MiloMorai

Message Edited on 09/11/0309:44PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:51 PM
I didn't say they were .

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_trapper.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:04 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Quite rarely I had the occasion to see such a pile
- of manure colected in a single post (except the from
- the master trolls of this forum of course, Skychimp
- and milo)

Thankyou, I shall take that as a compliment, although I certianly wasn't trolling.

- Kernow wrote:
-- 280 wartime Meteor MkIIIs were produced. As far as
-- I can tell only one sqn (1 Sqn) was equipped with
-- them during the war: more than none.
-
- 1 Sqn?? oh boy, and what was the use of this
- squadron? Meteor until MkIV was barely flyable,
- performance was inferior to piston aircrafts, and
- cockpit was filled with warnings for the pilot to
- not attempt any aerobatic maneuver. Practically all
- early Meteors could do was take off and land (with
- difficulties).

As you well know, but selectively editted out, I was merely refutting the allegation that the allies had 'NO jet fighters at all.' And they were good enough at catching and shooting down V1s.


-- "By the time I reached [the Gruppe] there were
-- insufficient spare parts and insufficient spare
-- engines; there were even occasional shortages of J-2
-- fuel. I am sure all of these existed and production
-- was sufficient, but by that stage of the war the
-- transport system was so chaotic that things often
-- failed to arrive at front line units". Walther
-- Hagenah.
-
- Difficulties with spare parts were everywhere in LW
- in the last weeks of war. It was not specific to
- Me-262 units.

True indeed, although earlier either you or Isengrim said that the Me262 didn't suffer from fuel shortages because of the fuel it used. Yes, it must have been an advantage not to burn the same high-octane fuel as conventional piston engines, but fuel shortages were still a problem.


-- You are right, it is laughable. One day in four or
-- five would seem closer to the truth:
--
-- Kommando Nowotny re-equipped with Me 262 fighters
-- fitted with production engines, and reached a
-- strength of 23 aircraft at the end of September. The
-- unit was declared ready for operations and moved to
-- Achmer and Hesepe in northwest Germany to operate in
-- the interceptor role.
-
- What a crap. At the time of Kommando Nowotny
- operations Me-262 was not yet operational. Saying
- that defects of non-operational fighters appeared on
- operational ones is just a baseless claim and
- nothing else. Tell us the number of JG7 Me-262 lost
- in defective gear accidents. You don't know? then
- you're just flapping your gumms, to quote a classic
- on this forum.
-
- Bringing the defects found and solved during testing
- of an ww2 aircraft is just a sad attempt of
- trolling. Tell us about the deffects of operational
- aircraft.

I have done. Which part of the phrase 'declared ready for operations' is hard to understand? When considering the effectiveness of the entire 262 fleet of what relevance is the number of JG7 gear malfunctions? But enlighten us if you must.


-- [i]Me 262s flew 58 sorties that day (31 Mar 45), the
-- greatest number ever. On the available evidence it
-- appears they shot down 14 bombers and 2 fighters,
-- for a loss of four of their number. That victory
-- score would mark the high-water-mark of achievement
-- for the Me 262 fighter units, and it would never be
-- surpassed...
-
- Yes, big deal, USAAF could take the blow. USAAF
- didn't care in any way about the crews lost, or the
- cost in civilian lifes of an inutile campaign.

The campaign was far from futile. The destruction of the German transportation system (and cities were key nodes in this) was the main reason for the chaos in the German supply chain noted above and, arguably, was more effective than targetting the factories themselves.

Fifty-eight sorties out of a fleet of 160-180. And that was the best ever achieved, yet still you refuse to believe there were serviceability problems!


-- To sum-up the career of the Me 262:
--
-- The figures are not particularly impressive, yet in
-- each case they mark the best days in the Me 262's
-- combat career. For the rest of the time the figures
-- for aircraft deployed, sorties flown and victories
-- achieved were even lower. The fighting power of an
-- air force is governed not by the number of planes it
-- has, but by the number of planes it can support
-- effectively in action. <u>The most important single
-- factor constraining the employment of the Me 262 in
-- operational service was the short running life of
-- the Jumo 004 turbojet.</u> Despite the valiant
-- efforts by Junkers engineers, even by the spring of
-- 1945 the Jumo 004 was not a fully reliable unit.
-- Some post-war writers have criticised Luftwaffe
-- leaders for failing to get the Me 262 into
-- production early enough. Yet if anything, they
-- initiated production of the aircraft rather too
-- early. In the spring of 1944 Me 262 airframes were
-- coming off the
-- assembly lines before the engine to power them was
-- ready for release for mass production.
-
- Who's the author of this masterpiece?

Dr Alfred Price, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and these are his sources:

Green, William, "Warplanes of the Third Reich", Macdonald and Co London, 1970, p619

Morgan, Hugh, "Me 262", Osprey, London, 1994, p 23 et seq

Interview Walther Hagenah, Me 262 pilot.

Irving, David, "The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe", Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1973, p 281 et seq

Dierich, Wolfgang, "Kampfgeschwader Edelweis", Ian Allan, Shepperton, 1974, p 92-94

Data supplied by the German air historian Hans Ring

United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Aircraft Division Industry Report, Exhibit III.

Interview Guenther Wegmann, Me 262 pilot

Foreman, John and Harvey, S, "The Messerschmitt 262 Combat Diary", Air Research Publications, Walton-on-Thames 1995, p 45-52

Luftwaffe Quartermaster General's Report, 10 January 1945

Interview Hans-Georg Baetcher, Me 262 pilot with KG 54

Luftwaffe Quartermaster General's Report, 9 April 1945

Most of those are German sources. Furthermore, I've never seen David Irving described as anti-German!


-- Modern readers might care to marvel at the pace at
-- which the Germans pushed ahead with their programme
-- to bring the
-- revolutionary new aircraft type into action:

-- Me 262 ordered into large scale production August
-- 1943
-- First Me 262 unit operational July 1944
-- First large-scale (50 plus sortie) operation by Me
-- 262s February 1945
-- Thousandth Me 262 delivered March 1945
--
-- Even today we might find it difficult to match such
-- a time scale!
-
- Oh this is the impartial source you found?? Quote
- only the defects and say nothing why it was such a
- big step forward in fighter design. Yeah, great
- quality information.

All of the above points sound highly complimentary towards the German engineers involved in the project. The full article has more information which clearly reveals admiration for the achievement, but it wasn't relevant to this discussion. 'Quote only the defects and say nothing why it was such a big step forward in fighter design,' you erroneously say; which part of <u>'Modern readers might care to marvel at the pace at which the Germans pushed ahead with their programme to bring the revolutionary new aircraft type into action: </u> was so hard to understand?


- Low serviceability myth is just idiotic
- allied propaganda, trying to
- find excuses for its own technological backwardness.

The last part of that reveals much and does more than I ever could to discredit your opinions. But have a good day anyway /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:06 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- What's the big deal about this? Merlin was a
- Volkswagen engine put to do a Ferrari work. They
- squeezed the last drop of power from this design
- instead of move on to a larger displacement engine.
- I wrote above the comparative fuel consumption,
- Merlin consumed 50% more fuel in high regimes.


Thank you very much for your wonderfully insightful reply to my post. Just exactly where did I make any "big deal" about anything? I suggest that you re-read my post, which, in any case, was not directed to you.

If you have any degree of interest or worthwhile information to contribute to a discussion on a possible evolutionary relationship between WW1 German approaches to high-altitude engine design and the DB6xx in-line engine, I would be pleased to discuss the matter with you. Otherwise, give your over-heated insecurities a rest. People will take you more seriously when you learn to curb your adolescent urges to blindly lash out in every direction. You and your buddy Isegrim are really a pair.

BTW, Harry Voyager, I'm still interested to hear your thoughts on this relationship topic.



Blutarski



Message Edited on 09/11/0310:10PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 01:32 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Sure they didn`t, after all, the Allies won by
- numbers, never by quality. No wonder their losses
- were so much higher..


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Goebbels couldn't have said it better /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 09/12/0304:50AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 01:48 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Yep, loosing some 160 000 airmen in exchange for
- 7200 German fighter pilots.
-
- If that result was good enough for them, they must
- have been like Uncle Ho, any high loss rate was
- acceptable, life was considered of no value.


Issy, have you forgotten, the fighter's job is to shoot down bombers. The bomber's job is to do this:

http://www.alien8.de/dd/pix/a2-thumb.jpg


The bombers did their job, the German fighters did not.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:19 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Quite rarely I had the occasion to see such a pile
- of manure colected in a single post (except the from
- the master trolls of this forum of course, Skychimp
- and milo)

Well we certainly don't spout the party line. So I can see why you would disagree with us.



- 1 Sqn?? oh boy, and what was the use of this
- squadron? Meteor until MkIV was barely flyable,
- performance was inferior to piston aircrafts, and
- cockpit was filled with warnings for the pilot to
- not attempt any aerobatic maneuver. Practically all
- early Meteors could do was take off and land (with
- difficulties).

Yet German pilots avoided them. When the Brits went looking for the Me-262s, they were nowhere to be found.



- pushing MP instead of enlarging the capacity meant a
- poor fuel efficiency: Merlins for 1525hp produced
- had a fuel consumption of 720l/hr, DB605A for 1550hp
- had a fuel consumption of 480l/hr. Merlin was an
- outdated and fuel inefficient design.

And yet, no country continued to produce them in any quantity after the war. That's how good they were.



- What a tasteless joke. DB605 was cheaper from the
- materials used to the manufacturing process
- involved.

Oh yes. The Nazis NEVER employed slave labor to build their war materials. And NEVER took into consideration the cost effectiveness of doing so.



- Difficulties with spare parts were everywhere in LW
- in the last weeks of war. It was not specific to
- Me-262 units.

True.



- What a crap. At the time of Kommando Nowotny
- operations Me-262 was not yet operational. Saying
- that defects of non-operational fighters appeared on
- operational ones is just a baseless claim and
- nothing else.

You love to deny history, don't you Huckles. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Bringing the defects found and solved during testing
- of an ww2 aircraft is just a sad attempt of
- trolling. Tell us about the deffects of operational
- aircraft.

Ok. I'll do that:

The outer sections of the wing leading-edge automatic slots were never satisfactory since these opened about 25 mm and increased drag at high speed due to defleection.

Aileron oscillation occurred at moderate to high speeds.

Aeroelastic deformation produced pronounced nose-down pitching moments at high speed, and the elevator became heavy due to a change in pressure distribution.

Maximum level speed of an average Me-262 was 536 mph at 22,880 feet, in winter. In summer it was 508 mph, the difference being caused by as much as 30 difference in engine thrust caused by the variation in air temperature.

One of the major drawbacks of the Jumo engine was its tendancy to flame out at altitude and suffer comressor stall at high speeds and altitude. As a result, flight restructions were often imposed which limited the Me-262 to no more than 26,240 feet. It was planned to overcome these problems by developing duplex fuel burners and an improved compressor, but this was never done.

These were all problems with PRODUCTION front-line aircraft, problems that were NEVER solved.



- Yes, big deal, USAAF could take the blow. USAAF
- didn't care in any way about the crews lost, or the
- cost in civilian lifes of an inutile campaign.

Of course they cared about crews lost. But this was war and you don't crush the enemy by not fighting.



- Who's the author of this masterpiece?

Even if he told you, you wouldn't recognize it. Your "facts" are either fabricated, or come off some website somewhere.



- The only impediment for Me-262 was the general lack
- of fuel LW faced at the end of war. Jumo004 was
- cheaper than its piston counterparts and Me262
- needed its engines replaced at almost the same
- number of missions as Bf-109. Low serviceability
- myth is just idiotic allied propaganda, trying to
- find excuses for its own technological backwardness.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:46 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Quite rarely I had the occasion to see such a pile
- of manure colected in a single post

Believe me, Kernow knows exactly what he's talking about
and researches carefully.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:48 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Quite rarely I had the occasion to see such a pile
-- of manure colected in a single post
-
- Believe me, Kernow knows exactly what he's talking
- about
- and researches carefully.


None of his remarks are correct, are said that already, but we can make a short recap on the points he outlined:

1. Me-262 units employed novices, who had no idea of the dangers related to jet fighter operations.

False. JG7 the largest unit to use Me-262 had a theoretical strenght of 208 pilots, but most of the gruppen attached to JG7 never had full strength. Max number of pilots was around 150 from which 120 (!!) were aces (in allied count: +5 kills), 11 pilots with over 100 kills, 33 with over 40 kills. US and GB could not gather such unit from their entire fleets, can you say that they were novices?
Here's a list of JG7 aces:

http://www.angelfire.com/wa/JG7/Pilots.html

In April '45 JV44 was attached to JG7 as IV. Gruppe, but JV44 comprised exclusively elite pilots.


2. He quotes defects of planes found and solved during tests. At the time of Kommando Nowotny, Me-262 was in combat trials (like La5FN was in combat trials at Kursk). Me-262 was declared operational after the Kommando Nowotny was integrated in JG7 as III. Gruppe in Nov. 1944.

There were important differences between Me-262 flow before and after Nov.'44: first of all Jumos were not cleared for full thrust, max speed at sea level was only 740kmh instead of 835kmh, also the airframe of the older model was 300kg lighter (6100kg loaded weight instead of 6880kg, with full ammo, full fuel tanks: 1800l, 600l aux tank not installed yet), clearly indicating extensive modifications for the variant entered in production.


3. "On 7 October 1944 Kommando Nowotny scrambled five Me 262s - the largest number it had yet sent into combat"

Of course, it was the largest number sent in combat, Me-262 was not yet operational. Those were combat trials.


4. "In the unit the level of training was low, serviceability of the jet fighters was poor and rarely could more than five sorties be flown in a day. Galland ordered the Kommando Nowotny to withdraw to Lechfeld for further training"

Again not relevant. Jumos development was not finished and Me-262 was still in trials at that time. By the time Me-262 became operational its serviceability was not different from any other piston plane in LW. A large procent of planes were left unserviceable because LW at that time could not afford to keep all its planes combat ready and not flying them because of lack of fuel. Serviceability was kept proportional with the fuel reserves.


5. "Yet, even on this most successful of days, the losses they inflicted amounted to less than one percent of the huge Allied forces over Germany. The effect was no more than a pinprick."

And yet it was the most efficient plane in term of kills per sortie ever used in ww2. In 5 months of scarce operations JG7 aces alone scored around 350 kills from a total JG7 kills of aprox 450.
The "pinprick effect" comment can be hardly view as unbiassed. To me it's rather ignorant.


6. "The most important single factor constraining the employment of the Me 262 in operational service was the short running life of the Jumo 004 turbojet. Despite the valiant efforts by Junkers engineers, even by the spring of 1945 the Jumo 004 was not a fully reliable unit."

Jumo was not a FULLY reliable unit, as no realiable jet was in production until '48. Because jets were not yet a proven outside test pads Junkers engineers chose a very simple jet design, with rather nonimpressive thrust, just to confirm the validity of the concept and produce in a short time a powerplant useful for military operations. The simplicity and safety were also the reasons why Messerschmitt made a plane with twin engines mounted in wing nacelles rather than having a single powerful but dangerous jet enclosed in the fuselage like P-80, even if later solution was clearly more advantageous aerodynamically. If R. Bong had flown Me-262 and suffered an engine failure, he would probably have lived to tell us the story, as most did.

Fact is until '48 there was no jet plane more safe than Me-262 - with the probable exception of F-80, after the engine problems were solved. By the way the engine troubles for P-80 appeared during service trials (or operational trials, this is the same thing) not operational service. P-80 service trials lasted from Feb'45 to July'46 (just for comparison service trials for Me-262 lasted from March'44 to Oct'44 including).

Now on the initial argument:

"The most important single factor constraining the employment of the Me 262 in operational service was the short running life of the Jumo 004 turbojet."

And another quote: "Fifty-eight sorties out of a fleet of 160-180. And that was the best ever achieved, yet still you refuse to believe there were serviceability problems!"

Absolutely NO. 40% readiness in Me-262 units is quite the norm for any unit in LW at the end war. I already mentioned the reason for this, namely the lack of fuel: why keep total readiness if you know very well that you have fuel for less that half of your planes? Do you think that LW could afford that in '45? In fact there was always planes available than fuel at the end of war. LW units received by then an average of 10% of the fuel supply available to them in March'44. 10%-20% fuel for 40% planes, that's the ratio you have to apply to LW units from beginning of '45 to those from the beginning of '44.

In other words 40% readiness in Me-262 units has nothing to do with their engines.

------------------

Now I understand the jealousy caused by Me-262, the day it appeared on the battlefield it rendered all other planes obsolete. I can hardly see the history written in West as objective since it still does not recognize Western Front as of secondary importance in the economy of war. Me-262 was an outstanding achivement both technological and military and yet it has to be mudded because it's not american or british. None of the reasons I found in such disparaging articles can resist to a serious scrutiny.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:17 PM
wow

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:50 AM
Huckebein sir, thankyou for your reply. Some was indeed interesting, although you still answer my points with irrelevant or selective arguements and provide no sources for any of your information (save the link to JG7 aces, which was never in question anyway). All was couched in reasonable terms, although you had to ruin it with the signature block by reverting to rant mode /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- None of his remarks are correct, are said that
- already, but we can make a short recap on the points
- he outlined:
-
- 1. Me-262 units employed novices, who had no idea of
- the dangers related to jet fighter operations.
-
- False. JG7 the largest unit to use Me-262 had a
- theoretical strenght of 208 pilots, but most of the
- gruppen attached to JG7 never had full strength. Max
- number of pilots was around 150 from which 120 (!!)
- were aces (in allied count: +5 kills), 11 pilots
- with over 100 kills, 33 with over 40 kills. US and
- GB could not gather such unit from their entire
- fleets, can you say that they were novices?
- Here's a list of JG7 aces:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.angelfire.com/wa/JG7/Pilots.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.angelfire.com/wa/JG7/Pilo
- ts.html</a>
-
-
- In April '45 JV44 was attached to JG7 as IV. Gruppe,
- but JV44 comprised exclusively elite pilots.

You continually quote JG7 as if that were the entire 262 fleet. As you say the unit was unprecedented in its pilot skill and experience. Galland could put together such a force, because fuel shortages grounded most of the conventional aircraft, which they might otherwise have flown. However, other units also used the 262. I should point out - again - that it was <u>Walther Hagenah, 262 pilot</u>, not me, who said there were novice pilots flying jets in his unit.


- 2. ... Me-262 was declared
- operational after the Kommando Nowotny was
- integrated in JG7 as III. Gruppe in Nov. 1944.

OK, let's get this perfectly clear: the Me262 went operational in Nov 1944?

That would make the Gloster Meteor the world's <u>first operational</u> jet fighter. The Meteor arrived on 616 Sqn (I was wrong above in saying 1 Sqn, I misread my source, which actually means one sqn) on 12 Jul 44. Two weeks later they moved to Manston with 7 Meteors and commenced operations, gaining their first kill on 4 Aug when Flg Off Dean 'knocked down' a V1, by flipping it over with the wingtip of Meteor EE216 (Wings Aviation Encyclodedia, Gloster entry, Derek James)

Dr Price's article says the 262 went operational on 20 Jul; you say Nov 44. Which is it? I don't mind either way - your call Huckie /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- 3. "On 7 October 1944 Kommando Nowotny scrambled
- five Me 262s - the largest number it had yet sent
- into combat"
-
- Of course, it was the largest number sent in combat,
- Me-262 was not yet operational. Those were combat
- trials.

As last point. Next point, 4, also deleted, because you say the 262 wasn't operational at the time, so see last point again.


- 5. "Yet, even on this most successful of days, the
- losses they inflicted amounted to less than one
- percent of the huge Allied forces over Germany. The
- effect was no more than a pinprick."
-
- And yet it was the most efficient plane in term of
- kills per sortie ever used in ww2. In 5 months of
- scarce operations JG7 aces alone scored around 350
- kills from a total JG7 kills of aprox 450.
- The "pinprick effect" comment can be hardly view as
- unbiassed. To me it's rather ignorant.

Was it the most efficient? You provide nothing to back that up and again I think you are trying to use JG7 to represent the entire 262 fleet. The 'pinprick' comment is merely a statement of fact - you seem overly sensitive.


- 6. "The most important single factor constraining
- the employment of the Me 262 in operational service
- was the short running life of the Jumo 004 turbojet.
- Despite the valiant efforts by Junkers engineers,
- even by the spring of 1945 the Jumo 004 was not a
- fully reliable unit."
-
- Jumo was not a FULLY reliable unit, as no realiable
- jet was in production until '48...

Perhaps so, and this gets back to the original thread. As I said much earlier, by mid-44 the RR Welland <u>fitted</u> to the Meteor was cleared for 180 hours between overhauls (from an article on fighter development during WW2, also by Dr Price). With almost twice the thrust:weight ratio, in addition to the considerably longer life, I would say that overall the Welland was at least as good as the Jumo, even if not FULLY reliable.

You (or Isegrim) dismissed those figures as post war test-bed figures, yet - once again - provided no evidence at all for your claim. What part of 'fitted to the Meteor, by mid-44' sounds like post-war test-bed?

Although the engine was at least as good, there is no question in my mind that the 262 was a far superior fighter - so don't go claiming that I'm saying it wasn't.

- Now on the initial argument:
-
- "The most important single factor constraining the
- employment of the Me 262 in operational service was
- the short running life of the Jumo 004 turbojet."
-
- And another quote: "Fifty-eight sorties out of a
- fleet of 160-180. And that was the best ever
- achieved, yet still you refuse to believe there were
- serviceability problems!"
-
- Absolutely NO. 40% readiness in Me-262 units is
- quite the norm for any unit in LW at the end war. I
- already mentioned the reason for this, namely the
- lack of fuel: why keep total readiness if you know
- very well that you have fuel for less that half of
- your planes? Do you think that LW could afford that
- in '45? In fact there was always planes available
- than fuel at the end of war. LW units received by
- then an average of 10% of the fuel supply available
- to them in March'44. 10%-20% fuel for 40% planes,
- that's the ratio you have to apply to LW units from
- beginning of '45 to those from the beginning of '44.
-
- In other words 40% readiness in Me-262 units has
- nothing to do with their engines.

This could make sense, particularly if the 262 fleet was 'old' and worn out. However, it was a brand new fleet, straight out of the factory; why were 60% unseviceable in the first place? Particularly as they didn't have the fuel to be flown much. Had there been adequate spares reaching the units, they could certainly have had more serviceable ac, but they would still have broken down with monotonous regularity. You are trying to make a virtue out of a vice.

However, if you can show that the poor serviceability was the result of real LW policy rather than the inevitable consequence of an unreliable power plant, then I'm still open to persausion on the point. If you're saying that the fuel shortages made the poor serviceability irrelevant, then I might have to agree. However, had more fuel been available I think poor serviceability would have been relevant.

Having looked at evidence from the LW QMG's office, as well as other evidence, Dr Price concluded, 'The most important single factor constraining the employment of the Me 262 in operational service was the short running life of the Jumo 004 turbojet,' as stated above. So far, the alternative explanation (fuel shortages) is just your say-so. Most of us will need more convincing.

-------------------
-
- ... I can hardly see the history
- written in West as objective since it still does not
- recognize Western Front as of secondary importance
- in the economy of war. Me-262 was an outstanding
- achivement both technological and military ...
-

You're preaching to the converted here; I've been studying and reading about the Eastern Front for over 20 years. It didn't take IL-2 to wake me up.

The 262 was a great achievement, but it was demonstrably not the all-conquering super-plane you would have us believe.

The rest was just ranting, which was a pity, as you'd convinced me that you and Isegrim are indeed different people. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kernow
249 IAP


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:14 PM
One of the great advantages that the Meteor had was
the fact that the Allies were already comprehensively
winning the war. It meant that they had good access
to strategic materials, and didn't need to rush into
production an aircraft with an engine that had to
be modified to run without high quality alloys. The
sheer weight of numbers of conventional aircraft, and
the ground advance meant that there was no need to
rush anything into service to help save the war effort,
and even if the Me 262 was faster than Allied prop
aircraft at the time, by the time it was deployed in
any numbers (and even then those numbers were small)
the war was already lost, bar some of the shooting.

If the LW had been able to deploy the Me262 in mid 1943,
when the daylight bombing campaign was sometimes suspended
due to losses, and when the LW would still have had
access to critical alloys, things might have been different.
The Me262 was a year too late to much matter. Maybe
the Me262 in 1943 could have stalled the allied bombing
campaign.

Arguably, with the Russian steamroller ongoing, what was
needed were more close support aircraft - so the bomber
version of the 262 might have been more useful, but I
don't think that it could have been deployed in sufficient
numbers to make a difference here either, as the scale
of deployment required would have been much later.

To speculate on a war winning Me262 you'd have to have
one in 1943, causing the allied bombing campaign to be
ceased, relieving enough pressure on transport infrastructure, etc, to be allow the German industrial
machine to produce enough Fw190Fs to win the war in the east!

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:31 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- How much actual production force was required to
- prototype
- the Me262, Ar234, V2, P1101, etc? Or in other words,
- how many more 190D9s could have been produced if all
- that
- effort had been dedicated to 190D9s, etc, rather
- than
- the V2, or the P.1101, etc? I don't suppose to know
- the answer, but it's a question worth asking.
-
-

By coincidence I just read this this morning:

"...it was later calculated that the materials in the V2 programme could have provided 24,000 additional fighters."

From 'Bomber Command 1939-1945' by Richard Overy, ISBN 0-26167-258-4, a very good read.

-------------------------------------

In January 1945 German officials from the Ministry of Armaments assessed what might have been produced in 1944 without the bombing. They estimated that German industry turned out 35% fewer tanks, 31% fewer aircraft and 42% fewer lorries than would have been possible otherwise.All the officials interviewed (after the war) stated that bombing was the factor responsible for the declining gains from rationalisation and for the eventual collapse of the economic structure after January 1945

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:47 PM
-
- By coincidence I just read this this morning:
-
- "...it was later calculated that the materials in
- the V2 programme could have provided 24,000
- additional fighters."
-
- From 'Bomber Command 1939-1945' by Richard Overy,
- ISBN 0-26167-258-4, a very good read.
-

Pretty much what I thought I guess :>

But really, I don't think it was any advantage or disadvantage in the actual design of aircraft [or guns, or tanks, or whatever]. It seems like there was very little in the way of overall management of the german military, certainly not to the level of even the infamously snarky branches of the US military, and that much of the same equipment and machinery was in use across the entire commonwealth certainly helped the supply situation there.

It doesn't help much if you've got 3 of the most advanced planes, guns, tanks, or whatnot in service if none of them share a part between them.

It amazes me that people are so hard on Issy and Huck - surely the end point of their remarks is nothing but a tribute to the fighting spirit of the allies. After all, apparently they went into battle with nothing but the worst equipment, pilots and war planners, and managed to lose every single battle from the BOB onwards.

What an incredible achievement that must have been when they finally reached Berlin and forced Hitler to make his final painting - a fresco detailing exactly what was in his head, all over the bunker walls :>


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:41 PM
Some quick answers, I'll be back with details after the week-end.


Kernow wrote:

- You continually quote JG7 as if that were the entire
- 262 fleet. As you say the unit was unprecedented in
- its pilot skill and experience. Galland could put
- together such a force, because fuel shortages
- grounded most of the conventional aircraft, which
- they might otherwise have flown. However, other
- units also used the 262. I should point out - again
- - that it was <u>Walther Hagenah, 262 pilot</u>, not
- me, who said there were novice pilots flying jets in
- his unit.


Of course, JG7 represented the entire fleet of Me-262 fighters. This is a basic fact, without any intention to insult, I think you should find some good readings about Me-262. The history of Me-262 fighter units are something like that: Ekdo 262 first testing squadron in spring'44, transformed in Kommando Novotny in summer, then integrated in Nov'44 in JG7 as III. Gruppe, the moment in which JG7 was converted to Me-262 (JG7 at the beginning of Me-262 operations comprised of 11 squadrons + Stabs). At the end of war a new gruppe was attached to JG7 formed from JV44. Other than that was a single night fighter squadron 10/NJG11. You can definitely say that JG7 was the entire fleet of Me-262 fighters, statistics for JG7 practically means the service record of Me-262 figters (A1 variant)



-- 2. ... Me-262 was declared
-- operational after the Kommando Nowotny was
-- integrated in JG7 as III. Gruppe in Nov. 1944.
-
- OK, let's get this perfectly clear: the Me262 went
- operational in Nov 1944?
-
- That would make the Gloster Meteor the world's
- <u>first operational</u> jet fighter. The Meteor
- arrived on 616 Sqn (I was wrong above in saying 1
- Sqn, I misread my source, which actually means one
- sqn) on 12 Jul 44. Two weeks later they moved to
- Manston with 7 Meteors and commenced operations,
- gaining their first kill on 4 Aug when Flg Off Dean
- 'knocked down' a V1, by flipping it over with the
- wingtip of Meteor EE216 (Wings Aviation
- Encyclodedia, Gloster entry, Derek James)


A single squadron operations with a new type of aircraft for a time period measured in months clearly indicates operational trials. When you move to a 11 squadron force then you are clearly in opearational service, so Me-262 entered in service in Nov'44. I don't know when that happened for Meteor. First operational Meteor was MkIII with deliveries started in December '44, but I don't know when the squadrons fitted with Meteors MkIII were declared operational. If you have that data it will be interesting to know.



- Dr Price's article says the 262 went operational on
- 20 Jul; you say Nov 44. Which is it? I don't mind
- either way - your call Huckie


I'd very much like to make sure that the exclusive right to use the appellative Huckie is kept by Milo. I hope you have nothing against it.



- Was it the most efficient? You provide nothing to
- back that up and again I think you are trying to use
- JG7 to represent the entire 262 fleet. The
- 'pinprick' comment is merely a statement of fact -
- you seem overly sensitive.


As I said JG7 represents the entire fleet of Me-262, since the only fighter group operating A1 outside it was JV44, which was absorbed by JG7 anyway. Do you think that statistics for JV44 are more representative for Me-262? I ask you because they are even better.


More to come/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:35 PM
Wrong Huckie. The KG(J) units such as I./KG(J)54 were fighter units.


So the Whirlwind, of which there was only 2 squadrons, was a non-operational a/c? What do say about the 100 Spit XIIs? That is only enough for 5 squadrons. Or the P-47M??? All less than the 11 squadrons you said for an a/c to be delared an operational a/c.

If you want to play with semantics, OK. A/c that flew combat were operational, whether in an operational test unit or not.

Also Huckie, if an a/c was mechanically fit for flight, whether there was fuel or not for the a/c, it is still classed as servicable.



Kernow, if you want to use 'Huckie', I don't mind./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif It's use should be not just exclusive to me. I don't have a copyright on the word./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:28 PM
You guuys can use "Huckie." But "Huckles" is all mine.

BTW, good points Milo.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:36 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Dr Price's article says the 262 went operational on
-- 20 Jul; you say Nov 44. Which is it? I don't mind
-- either way - your call Huckie
-
-
- I'd very much like to make sure that the exclusive
- right to use the appellative Huckie is kept by Milo.
- I hope you have nothing against it.
-

Ha ha! Indeed not /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif As a matter of fact, after proof reading I'd meant to edit that to 'your call sir' but must have got sidetracked by something later on.

Kernow
249 IAP

You also said:

'First operational Meteor was MkIII with deliveries started in December '44, but I don't know when the squadrons fitted with Meteors MkIII were declared operational. If you have that data it will be interesting to know.'

Only 20 of the first production variant, F Mk I, were built, 15 of which were delivered to the RAF. Twelve of these were given to 616 Sqn at Culmhead and the first ac arrived on 12 Jul 44, as already mentioned. Only 7 went with the sqn to Manston (did the others remain at Culmhead as a sort of operational conversion unit?). Meteor F Mk IIIs directly replaced F Mk Is serving with 616 Sqn in Dec 44. They joined 2ATAF on the continent in Jan 45, specifically for anti-262 operations. However, as they were initially not allowed to fly over enemy territory, lest one fall into German hands, it's hardly surprising there is no record of any encounter with a 262. At the end of the war they were joined by 504 Sqn. That seems to mean that by the war's end there were two sqns, although it seems 504 Sqn can have seen little or no action.

As they went straight to the sqn it seems they were operational immediately.


Message Edited on 09/13/0305:03PM by Kernow

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:38 PM
Kernow wrote:
-
- Sir, I believe you are living in some sort of
- fantasy world. Apart from a couple of 'tongue in
- cheek' responses, I shall endeavour to let others,
- more knowledgeable in this area, speak for me.
-

Too much tirade... have you ever though about the interesting phenomenon, that some monkeys in the zoo might actually believe that it is their visitors who are behind bars, and not them.

I think this has some resamblance to your case.



-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
--
---- LOL, more practical? What is more practical in
---- having NO jet fighters fighting at all?
---
-
- 280 wartime Meteor MkIIIs were produced. As far as
- I can tell only one sqn (1 Sqn) was equipped with
- them during the war: more than none.

I am fully aware that Meteors were produced and equipped RAF squadrons during WW2. As I am also aware that they were never used in aerial combat vs. other fighters.

However, I your last sentence concludes Allied jet development in WW2 very well: It was more than none, less than something.



-
-- Sure it doesn`t, after all, we all seen how
-- inpractical British aero engine development was in
-- regards of the Sabre and Merlin..
-
- No we haven't seen that, you just told us the Merlin
- was rubbish for pushing MAP development. I agree
- that the Sabre wasn't a particularly good engine.
-


Perhaps blinded people like you have difficulties in understanding why is it impractical to have a small volume engine that consumes 50% more while developing the same power... this is little concern to most of us, however.



-
-
-- Germany did a much better job with it`s DB 60x
-- series, with simple, reasonable improvements in
-- boost, compression ratio, volume and supercharging
-- capacity. Result: same performance at less weight,
-- much less consumption and cheaper production.
-
- Well slave labour is bound to be cheaper /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hmm, wasn`t the entire British Empire built on slave labour of hundreds of millions ?


-
-
-- If that result was good enough for them, they must
-- have been like Uncle Ho, any high loss rate was
-- acceptable, life was considered of no value.
-
- "In our unit, flying the Me 262, we had some
- pilots with only about a hundred hours total flying
- time. They were able to take-off and land the
- aircraft, but I had the definite impression that
- they were little use in combat. It was almost a
- crime to send them into action with so little
- training. These young men did their best, but they
- had to pay a heavy price for their lack of
- experience."
-
- "Our 'ground school' lasted one afternoon. We were
- told of the peculiarities of the jet engine, the
- danger of flaming out at high altitude, and their
- poor acceleration at low speeds. The vital
- importance of handling the throttles carefully was
- impressed on us, lest the engines caught fire. Yet
- we were not permitted to look inside the cowling at
- the jet engine itself - we were told they were very
- secret and we did not need to know about them!"
- Walther Hagenah
-
- Sounds like they weren't the only ones who thought
- life was of little value then.
-


Still, about 250 Allied aircraft were lost in exchange of 50 Me 262s in aerial combat. Source : 'Top Gun' magazine.



-- Personally, I doubt that the half an hour time
-- required after every 30 or so (=about 1 month of
-- operational service) jet sorties to replace the
-- Jumos to a new, hampered German jet operations at
-- all.
-
-
- Then you are deluding yourself, because hampered
- they were. Don't take my word for it.
-
-
- "By the time I reached [the Gruppe] there were
- insufficient spare parts and insufficient spare
- engines; there were even occasional shortages of J-2
- fuel. I am sure all of these existed and production
- was sufficient, but by that stage of the war the
- transport system was so chaotic that things often
- failed to arrive at front line units". Walther
- Hagenah.



Sorry, it is you who has submerged in self-dillusion. While continouing repeating your mantra of "Me 262 sorties were hampered by short engine life, Me 262 sorties were hampered by short engine life", you only forgot to notice that your source, which you cited to "prove" this misconception of yours, doesn`t say at all that operations were hampered by the "low" overhaul time of the Jumo 004B...

Since you were unable to graps it first, I will take a more direct way to enlighten you: Considering that jet sorties were of usually 1 hour lenght, an overhaul time of apprx. 25-50 hours meant that the jet unit had to be replaced after 25-50 sorties; that means half an hour work in every month or two, depending on how many sorties are flown. By that time, using even very modest loss rate of 5%, the plane already lost anyways to some other cause.



-
-
--- So the 262s could only fly once every 2 days and
--- then it was only one flight. Or to put it another
--- way, one 1 hr flight every day > lots of combat
--- there.
--
-- I wonder in what ways could you arrive at this
-- laughable statements that Me 262s could only fly
-- once in 2 days, LOL. Certainly Allied
-- aircrews would have liked it this way.
-
- You are right, it is laughable. One day in four or
- five would seem closer to the truth:


ROFMALOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I presume that during your "very through" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif research you have never come by the dates between March 18th and 30th, during when usually 25-50 jet fighters attacked US bomber streams EVERY DAY.



-
- Kommando Nowotny re-equipped with Me 262 fighters
- fitted with production engines, and reached a
- strength of 23 aircraft at the end of September. The
- unit was declared ready for operations and moved to
- Achmer and Hesepe in northwest Germany to operate in
- the interceptor role.
-
- Although the production Jumo 004s were somewhat more
- reliable than their predecessors, they still gave a
- lot of trouble. Also, the Me 262's airframe had its
- share of "bugs" to be ironed out. One serious
- problem stemmed from the use of synthetic and
- reclaimed rubber, all that was available, in the
- tyres fitted to the aircraft. The jet fighter
- touched down at around 100 knots, much faster than
- other combat types. A heavy landing would cause a
- tyre to blowout, followed by a departure from the
- runway which often led to undercarriage damage.
-
- On 7 October 1944 Kommando Nowotny scrambled five Me
- 262s - the <u>largest number it had yet sent into
- combat</u> - to engage American bomber formations
- making for targets in central Germany. Cruising over
- Achmer at 15,000 feet in a P-51 Mustang, Lieutenant
- Urban Drew of the 361st Fighter Group watched a pair
- of jet fighters commence their take-off runs. He
- waited until the enemy planes were airborne, then
- rolled his fighter on its back and went down in a
- high-speed dive. With his wingman following, Drew
- rapidly caught up with the Me 262s and shot down
- both before they reached fighting speed. Another jet
- fighter was lost during a separate action with
- escort fighters. Thus the first multi-aircraft
- action by Kommando Nowotny cost three Me 262s
- destroyed and one pilot killed, in return for three
- American bombers shot down.
-
- Worse followed. On 8 November Walter Nowotny was
- caught up in a low level dogfight with Mustangs and
- for reasons
- that are unclear his Me 262 dived into the ground.
- The famous pilot was killed.
-
- Generalmajor Adolf Galland happened to be on an
- inspection visit to Achmer that day, to determine
- why the Me 262s had not achieved more. The fighter
- commander saw enough to realise that Nowotny had
- been given an impossible task. The latter was
- expected to introduce a completely new and
- revolutionary fighter type into combat, in an area
- where the enemy held almost total air superiority.
- In the unit the level of training was low,
- <u>serviceability of the jet fighters was poor and
- rarely could more than five sorties be flown in a
- day.</u> Galland ordered the Kommando Nowotny to
- withdraw to Lechfeld for further training, and for
- the aircraft to be modified to overcome many of
- their defects.



Great, now we know that your laughable comments of "1 sortie in every 5 days" are based on a single units performance in a single month when jet fighters were considerably new and their engines were still semi-experimental. Something which changed dramatically after a few months.



- Allied aircrews didn't need to be overly concerned
- by the 262:
-
- Me 262s flew 58 sorties that day (31 Mar 45), the
- greatest number ever. On the available evidence it
- appears they shot down 14 bombers and 2 fighters,
- for a loss of four of their number. That victory
- score would mark the high-water-mark of achievement
- for the Me 262 fighter units, and it would never be
- surpassed. Yet, even on this most successful of
- days, the losses they inflicted amounted to less
- than one percent of the huge Allied forces over
- Germany. The effect was no more than a pinprick.


Says you. Unfortunately, both you and your source is wrong both factually and in your statements... this comes when somebody`s 'research', like the one of yours, is merely limited to quick cut-and-paste work from a website that obviously like to lessen the results obtained by the Me 262...

However, it`s interesting to compare your subjective reality with sources from the Allied side describing the effect of the Me 262 on them:

A secret report, which was prepeared for President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhowever, stated: "During this time the Germans literally flew circles around our fighters, and blasted holes into our bomber formations with inpunity. [...] For example, on the 18th March 1945 there were 14 Fighter Groups escorting 1250 B-17 on a raid againt Berlin, which means that almost every single bomber had a fighter to protect it. They were attacked by a single Me 262 Squadron, which despite outnumber apprx. 100 to 1 shot down 25 bombers and 5 fighters. The Germans didn`t loose a single aircraft."

The report was prepeared by Raplh Williams of the White House for Eisenhower`s personal use. Among other issues, it also told about an interview with General Carl Spaatz, C-in-C of the 8. Air Force during WW2. Spaatz "readily admitted, that agaisnt German jets, not one of our fighters could be compared, and added that if the Germans were able to send these planes into combat over Normandy in larger numbers, they could have taken aerial superiority and defeat the Normandy landings, and force us to invade Europe from Italy."

Source : Stephen Ambrose : D-Day



- The quotes are taken from an article out of an air
- power magazine published on the RAF's website. It
- provides a useful corrective to many of the oft
- quoted myths about the 262. I have posted the link
- on a couple of occasions.


That gives answers to a couple of question that have arisen.

First of all, you offend and accuse people with not making serious research; whereas your "research" as we have seen is limited to a cut-and-paste job from an aircraft magazine, qouted from Alfred Price, who is far from being considered as an expert on the Me 262. The starter of this thread goes as far as calling him "serial author", which I believe is a derogratory remark of the low quality and poor research witnessed in his works.

Second, your wording makes it clear that your posts are preconceptional, and have the outspoken purpose of "correcting" the fact that the Me 262 was a very successfull design, and influenced the mindset of Allied strategist much more than the small numbers it saw action. It`s also appearant that you have engaged in this anti-262 crusade for numerous occasions so far, posting this selected pile of BS on every Me 262 thread possible.



- Isengrim sir, you have implied that the only
- technical impediment to Me 262 operations was the
- need for a half hour engine change once a month. I
- believe I have shown that the best which was ever
- achieved was a sortie rate of 1 sortie per 3 jets
- per day.

OK. Let`s accept your numbers that out of the total jets on hand jets 33% could fly a sortie on a day.

Let`s forget about that previously you have claimed that typically 1 jet could only fly a sortie in 5 days. Let`s also forget that this is proven total BS by real world event, ie. historical jet operations in March 1945.

Also, we should look over that you, while qouting from Alfred Price : Last year of the Luftwaffe in order to prove your preconceptional ideas, you missed somehow the On Hand/Servicibility figures presented in the very same book, which on avarage show that 50 to 70% of all jets on hand were operational at a time.

Let`s forget all of this, and just make a comparision with the US escort fighters ability to fly escort sorties in ETO during the same period (March 1945). The relevant data below are taken from the USAAF`s official "AAF Statistical Digest for WW2":

In March 1945, there were 3951 US figther with the 1st line units (250 P-38s, 1931 P-47s, 1694 P-51s, 76 Night fighters).

These 3951 fighter made a total of 62 842 sorties in March 1945, in 31 days. In other words, a single Allied fighter was capable of flying a sortie once in two days only.

However since you chosed to misrepresent Me 262 sorties by giving only intercept missions only (not to mention only for one unit, JG 7`s Me 262s namely), and left out all outher mission type, such as : Recon, Bombing, Ground attack, or other, we will do the same, and count only "Escort" type missions for the Allies.

Allied Fighters in ETO flew 19 853 escort sorties in March 1945. If using the overly stupid conception of using that number to represent servicibility rate of Allied fighter units, we can only come to the conclusion that Allied Fighters in ETO, March 1945 could only fly

19 853 / 3951 / 31 = 0.16 sorties per day per plane.

So, the final result by using your comparision method for arriving at the servicibility rates of jet fighters and escort figters, we arrive at:

A single Me 262s could fly a sortie in every 3 days because of all possible problems (and not limited solely to engine as you tried to suggest based on nothing)

A single Allied escort fighter could fly a sortie in every 6.5 days because of all possible problems.


Of course, more intelligent members of this board know that such methods are just outrageously stupid, and this trick were only employed by you the spread your preconception about just how bad the Me 262 was... However, applying the same to Allied units gave even worser figures.


-
- The major reason for this poor
- serviceability rate was the Jumo 004 engine.
-

Says you, but none of your sources...

Servicibility rate of Me 262 units was 50-70%, according to Alfred Price. Period. Try to live with it, and also with the fact that it contains other reasons as well than just servicibility of the jet unit.


Also, though I hate to repeat myself, but overhaul time of the Jumo 004 engines was 25-50 hours, later models being better. This translates to after a similiar numer (25-50) of sorties flow, or 1-2 months of combat flying. Since replacing the jet unit was easy, and required only about half an hour, only intellectually challenged people would think that half an hour of service work due to low engine TBO in each month or two could mean any serious difficulty with operations.


However, we can also listen to actual pilots, who describe why engine low TBO wasn`t any problem:

"I like my new plane [Bf 109 G-10], the 'fat' Gustav. Our mechanics told that it`s [DB 605 D] engine had to be replaced ever 30-40 hours. This doesn`t cause us problems, however. Every sortie is a combat sortie now. One sortie takes about 1 to 1.5hours. It`s hard to fly 30 missions one after the other without the plane being damaged at all, without the need to bail out or belly land."

-1st. LT. Tobak Tibor of 101st. Fighter Regiment. 1 year frontline service 1944-45, 1000 flown hours on Me 109, 5 confirmed aerial victories.



-
- You
- are welcome to stick to your unsubstantiated claims
- after reading this, but I believe most intelligent
- readers will conclude that you have not researched
- your case at all.
-


It`s really funny to read this, just after I teared all your pathetic manipulations apart. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:52 PM
Very good post, Isegrim, and I agree with you.

But 20-25 hours for overhaul of the 004 was a projected overhaul time. In reality, it fluctuated greatly. Many required overaul in as little as 5 hours, many around 15 and few went the full 20-25.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 09/13/0308:56PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:06 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Very good post, Isegrim, and I agree with you.
-
- But 20-25 hours for overhaul of the 004 was a
- projected overhaul time. In reality, it fluctuated
- greatly. Many required overaul in as little as 5
- hours, many around 15 and few went the full 20-25.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp


Thanks for the support, Chimp. You are right about the difference between projected and practical TBO times, the powerplants were much more stressed in operation not only because harsh conditions, but also because the harsh way pilot`s used them... ie. throttle up fully to catch the bandit, then throttle back suddenly almost to idle not to overshoot. However, I`d like to remind you that the 'projected' TBO of early jumos was given as 25 hours, later ones were given as 50 hours (theoretical) operation time. So, about 20-40 hours of practical lifespan.

However, I think we can generally agree that the replacement of engines was a tertiary issue in servicibility compared to everyday maintaince and repairing battle damage, not to mention that most a/c was likely to be lost already by the time it required a replacement engine, and even then there were always more planes than pilots to fly them!


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 07:44 PM
Still have not provided any official document that says the engine of a 262 could be changed in 30 minutes Issy.

-----------

A report (Herr Bohler- MTT 'Technische Aubendienst) dated March 20 1945 for reasons for a/c unservicablility for less than 48hr

engine problems > 34%
undercarriage > 35%
control serface replacement > 5%
nose cone replacement > 9%
wing replacement > 4%
electrical/radio problems > 3%
workshop test flights > 10%

a/c losses or partial losses(non-combat):

engine > 40%
piloting problems > 20%
undercarriage failures > 20%
hitting obstructions > 15%
tyre failure > 5%


Seems besides the u/c the the engines were a BIG problem.

------------

"EVERY DAY"????

18 March (Me262 fighters only)

III./JG7 > 37 TO, 28 make contact(75%), 2 lost(5.4%)

USAAF >

Eighth AF: 1,329 bombers and 733 fighters are dispatched to hit railway stations and tanks plants in the Berlin area, 13 lost(0.63%)

Eighth AF: 495 of 530 B-17s hit the Nord rail station in Berlin; targets of opportunity are Ludwigslust (3) and other (3), escort is 238 P-51, 8 lost(1.1%)

Eighth AF: 347 B-24s are sent to hit the Tegel (225) and Henningsdorf (80) tank factories in Berlin; targets of opportunity are Oranienburg (9), Uelzen (9) and other (3), escort is 254 P-5, 3 lost(0.0005%)

Ninth AF: In Germany, 660+ A-20s, A-26s and B-26s hit the marshalling yards at Wetzlar, Worms, Kreuztal, and Bad Durkheim, a communications center at Bad Durkheim


19 March

III./JG7 > 45 TO, 28 make contact(62%), 2 lost(4.4%)

For this and the following dates see http://hometown.aol.com/jlowry3402/mar45.html

20 March

I. III./JG7 > 22 TO, 22 make contact(100%), 3 lost(13.6%)

21 March

Stab, 9, 10, 11./JG7, 2 lost

22 March

III/.JG7 > 27 TO, 4 lost

23 March

Stab/JG7 > 4??
I./JG7 > 14 TO, 1 lost(7.1%)

24 March

JG7 > 31 TO, 4 lost(12.9)

25 March

III./JG7 > 27 TO, 5 lost(18.5%)

26 March

no sorties > bad weather

27 March

III./EJG2 > claimed EAs. No EA losses this day (wrong date???)

28 March

small nuber from JG7(no listing)

29 March

no flights

30 March

JG7 > 31 TO, 4 lost(12.9%)

Eighth AF: 1,348 bombers and 889 fighters are dispatched to hit synthetic oil plants, a refinery, munitions plant and tank factory, 9 lost(0.004%)

Eighth AF: 229 B-17s are sent to hit the synthetic oil refinery at Zeitz using H2X radar; secondary targets hit are the oil plant at Bad Berka (29) and Gotha (20) visually; targets of opportunity are Erfurt (25) and other (8), 3 lost

Eighth AF: 294 B-17s are sent to hit Brandenburg (265); targets of opportunity are Stendal (9) and Salzwedel (9), escort 221 P-51, 1 lost

Eighth AF: 371 of 385 B-24s hit the secondary target, the marshalling yard at Brunswick, escort 266 P-47s and P-51, 2 lost

Eighth AF: 369 of 432 B-17s attack the secondary, the marshalling yard at Halle; targets of opportunity are Leipzig (8), Weimar (36), Aschersleben (7) and other (1), no losses

Ninth AF: In Germany, 550+ A-20s, A-26s and B-26s hit storage depots at Ebrach, Wurzburg, and Marienburg, the marshalling yard at Wurzburg, the town area of Rothenburg ob der Tauber, and a target of opportunity

Losses are to enemy action - fighters and flak.


Issy, Huckie was only counting FIGHTERS missions, not all types of missions.

If 1 hour flight time is used (you claim this for the 262) instead of the 8 hour flight (to and from Germany) then the fighters could fly 1.3 sorties/day using your numbers. This is then 4 times what you claim ("A single Me 262s could fly a sortie in every 3 days") for the 262(0.33sortie/day).



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/13/0306:39PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:22 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

--- Sure it doesn`t, after all, we all seen how
--- inpractical British aero engine development was in
--- regards of the Sabre and Merlin..
--
-- No we haven't seen that, you just told us the Merlin
-- was rubbish for pushing MAP development. I agree
-- that the Sabre wasn't a particularly good engine.
--
-
-
- Perhaps blinded people like you have difficulties in
- understanding why is it impractical to have a small
- volume engine that consumes 50% more while
- developing the same power... this is little concern
- to most of us, however.

People like me and presumably the engineers at Rolls Royce also. Clearly, consuming 50% more for the same power is less fuel efficient. Presumably the small volume engine would have a better power:weight ratio. I don't know, but I do know that there are many factors to be considered in designing an engine besides specific fuel consumption at high power. On the face of it, your claim that 'balanced' improvements offer more long term potential looks reasonable. However, it is still unreasonable to dismiss as impractical the designers of one of the (if not the) most successful piston engines of WW2.


- Still, about 250 Allied aircraft were lost in
- exchange of 50 Me 262s in aerial combat. Source :
- 'Top Gun' magazine.

I don't deny it was an impressive ac, which could achieve great things when it worked. Do you have the figures for 262s lost to accidents? And how does the accident rate compare to the Fw190, say? Ac lost to accident/fire are just as destroyed. Because all sides lose ac to accidents I would only add those accidental loses over and above typical conventional loses (if any), when trying to arrive at a 'full' picture. Naturally, ac destroyed on the ground don't prove anything. Other than comments in various sources indicating the 262 suffered a higher than normal accident rate, I don't have any figures to go on, however, I'd be interested in getting any hard facts.


--- Personally, I doubt that the half an hour time
--- required after every 30 or so (=about 1 month of
--- operational service) jet sorties to replace the
--- Jumos to a new, hampered German jet operations at
--- all.

I'm sorry, I misread your post and fell into the trap of answering something you clearly didn't say. Half an hour, even an hour per month would not be a great impediment to operations, if that is how long it took. However, engines can need maintenance and rectification short of a full replacement. It is this factor which reduced the effectiveness of the 262 - at least in the early part of is 'operational' employment - ok more on this later /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I presume that during your "very through" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif research you have
- never come by the dates between March 18th and 30th,
- during when usually 25-50 jet fighters attacked US
- bomber streams EVERY DAY.

Quite probably; I merely reported that the largets ever deployment was fifty whatever-it-was. Obviously, up to ~50 could have deployed on other days, out of a total force delivered of 1200, up to 180 of which were in service at one time. But I'm begining to see where and why we disagree - again more later /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- Great, now we know that your laughable comments of
- "1 sortie in every 5 days" are based on a single
- units performance in a single month when jet
- fighters were considerably new and their engines
- were still semi-experimental. Something which
- changed dramatically after a few months.

It was not a serious point about the entire 262 career - perhaps I should use even more smilies in future. I'm sorry if I gave that impression; however, in my defence, I'll point out that no-one had posted any serious evidence for sortie rates (not same as serviceability) until that point and the figures were accurate for the time in question. Furthermore, such facts must have been significant in Galland's mind when he withdrew the unit for further training etc.


-- Me 262s flew 58 sorties that day (31 Mar 45), the
-- greatest number ever... they shot down 14 bombers and
-- 2 fighters...
-- for a loss of four of their number. The effect was no
-- more than a pinprick.
-
-
- Says you. Unfortunately, both you and your source is
- wrong both factually and in your statements... this
- comes when somebody`s 'research', like the one of
- yours, is merely limited to quick cut-and-paste work
- from a website that obviously like to lessen the
- results obtained by the Me 262...

In what way are the numbers wrong for 31 Mar 45? Which was the day the 262 scored its greatest number of victories. Ah, I see, your quote for the 18 Mar lists 25 bombers and 5 fighters, which would be even more successful than the day I quoted. I'll check The Mighty Eighth War Diary ... see below

The research was not quick cut and paste from a website. I'd read the article in hardcopy, later found the website and downloaded all the volumes in pdf format which I saved to CD for future reference.

You have evidence for this anti-262 crusade? You're at liberty to believe anything; it doesn't always mean those who disagree have some ulterior motive. (Don't worry, I have to remind myself of that quite often /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

- However, it`s interesting to compare your subjective
- reality with sources from the Allied side describing
- the effect of the Me 262 on them:
-
- A secret report, which was prepeared for
- President of the United States Dwight D.
- Eisenhowever, stated: "During this time the Germans
- literally flew circles around our fighters, and
- blasted holes into our bomber formations with
- inpunity. [...] For example, on the 18th March 1945
- there were 14 Fighter Groups escorting 1250 B-17 on
- a raid againt Berlin, which means that almost every
- single bomber had a fighter to protect it. They were
- attacked by a single Me 262 Squadron, which despite
- outnumber apprx. 100 to 1 shot down 25 bombers and 5
- fighters. The Germans didn`t loose a single
- aircraft."

Hmmm, M8thWD lists total losses for the 18th Mar 45 as 13 bombers and 6 fighters. 1329 bombers despatched, 1184 effective, 733 fighters despatched, 426+ effective. That indicates more like 1 ftr:2-3 bmbrs. The notes do mention the jets, here we go, 'Most concentrated and successful attacks by Me-262 jets on bombers. Poor visibility enabled e/a to avoid escorts. 8 B-17 lost to flak. MIA 452BG B-17 collided 50 miles from Ijmuiden.' The caption to one of the photos reads, 'Back at Glatton a crowd gathers to see what 30mm fire from an Me262 jet has done to 457BG Lady Be Good. Everyone is impressed.' A further 15 bombers were beyond economic repair, although even if all we due to 262 action that gets us 'only' to 19 bombers. The best we can say is that the sources disagree.

Yes, I said the allied crews needn't have worried, which, statistically, is the whole point of the 'pinprick' comment. I don't doubt the psychological impact on those crews who did encounter the 262 was significant. Though by that stage of the war many did not even see a German ac at all.

You quoted an example of what the 262 could achieve. If we say your figures are correct it is indeed impressive. It was not always that way. Neither was it always as I'm about to post, but I'll post it anyway to show the other extreme:

The final large-scale air action to involve Me 262s took place on 10 April 1945, when 55 jets took off to engage more than two thousand US heavy bombers and escorts attacking targets in the Berlin area. The Me 262s claimed the destruction of ten B-17s and seven escorts and these find general support in US records... Twenty-seven Me 262s were destroyed, almost half of those committed, with 19 pilots killed and five wounded. Many of the jet fighters were caught as they returned to their airfields short of fuel, after had they slowed down to begin the landing approach.

Though note where the damage was done. This isn't posted to denigrate the 262, just to balance the previous example.

- ... Spaatz "readily admitted, that agaisnt
- German jets, not one of our fighters could be
- compared, and added that if the Germans were able to
- send these planes into combat over Normandy in
- larger numbers, they could have taken aerial
- superiority and defeat the Normandy landings, and
- force us to invade Europe from Italy."
-
- Source : Stephen Ambrose : D-Day

Very true and a very interesting 'what if?' But that would be a whole new debate /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I'll only say that the mechanical reliability problems during 44, which I have been emphasising, mean that it was impossible for the 262 to change the course of the war by playing a significant role over Normandy. For all its impressive performance it was 'tomorrow's' technology, which can be just as dangerous to posess as 'yesterday's' technology. It might have been close, perhaps less than a year, but it was too late.

-- The quotes are taken from an article out of an air
-- power magazine published on the RAF's website. It
-- provides a useful corrective to many of the oft
-- quoted myths about the 262. I have posted the link
-- on a couple of occasions.
-
-
- That gives answers to a couple of question that have
- arisen.
-
- First of all, you offend and accuse people with not
- making serious research;

Only if facts & figures seem to come out of thin air. I take no issue with any of the quotes you supplied above. I'm quite prepared to look again at anything which is subsequently 'backed up.'

- whereas your "research" as
- we have seen is limited to a cut-and-paste job from
- an aircraft magazine,

'Top Gun' magazine, quoted above, is presumably also a magazine?

- qouted from Alfred Price, who
- is far from being considered as an expert on the Me
- 262. The starter of this thread goes as far as
- calling him "serial author", which I believe is a
- derogratory remark of the low quality and poor
- research witnessed in his works.

I have never heard that. Generally I've found his work to be well researched, often drawing on German sources for the view 'from the other side.' However, I cannot comment further on this with any authority.

- Second, your wording makes it clear that your posts
- are preconceptional, and have the outspoken purpose
- of "correcting" the fact that the Me 262 was a very
- successfull design... It`s also appearant that you have
- engaged in this anti-262 crusade for numerous
- occasions so far, posting this selected pile of BS
- on every Me 262 thread possible.

Really? The reference to myths above actually refers to a thread about WW2 myths. That was the first occasion on which I posted the link I refered to. That was about the 262, but the myth was nothing to do with the ac itself. It was a reference to the 'myth' about Hitler's interference being the big factor in causing the 262 to be delayed. The effect has been greatly exagerated by some commentators. The other occasion on which I posted the link was for an article on the Stuka. I do not recall posting on any other 262 thread, but it is not impossible. I am on no anti-262 crusade; I've repeatedly said it was superior to any allied ac.

OK, I'm going to have to draw a line under this soon. I've been sat here for 2-3 hours on this post and I'm still only around half way /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . I'll move on to the point I promised earlier. Forgive me if I delete large parts of the following, leaving only the essential points, before I make my last point, for I think our readers (if any /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) might be getting bored.


-- Isengrim sir... sortie rate of 1 sortie per 3 jets
-- per day.
-
- ...this is proven total BS
- by real world event, ie. historical jet operations
- in March 1945.
-
- Also, we should look over that you, while qouting
- from Alfred Price : Last year of the Luftwaffe ... you
- missed somehow the On Hand/Servicibility figures
- presented in the very same book, which on avarage
- show that 50 to 70% of all jets on hand were
- operational at a time.

(I didn't quote from that book and have not seen those figures)


-- The major reason for this poor
-- serviceability rate was the Jumo 004 engine.
--
-
- Says you, but none of your sources...

(No, that was the conclusion of the Price article, but see below)
-
- Servicibility rate of Me 262 units was 50-70%,
- according to Alfred Price. Period. ... other
- reasons as well than just servicibility of the jet
- unit.
-
-
- ... overhaul
- time of the Jumo 004 engines was 25-50 hours, later
- models being better... replacing the jet
- unit was easy... only about half an hour,
-
- However, we can also listen to actual pilots...

(ok, duly noted)

Sir, your post was indeed interesting and well backed up with other material. I did not find your earlier posts as convincing. Let me make a quick summary of 262 (fighter) operations, which, perhaps, you will find acceptable. In essence you've been arguing that the 'fully operational' 262 of ~Mar 45 onwards was the dog's knob; I've been saying that the 262's development/operations was/were plagued primarily by engine troubles. I've re-read another article on handling the 262, by Frank Osman (a similar article on the 109, by the same author, clearly relies heavily on Galland's book, The First and The Last; it's harder to tell how much he drew on Galland for the 262 article, however.) In the light of this article I'm quite prepared to modify my position.

Here it is:

Initial 'operations' - trials if you prefer - (semantics, let's agree to disagree on what operations are) during the second half of 1944 <u>were</u> seriously hampered by a number of technical difficulties, the most serious of which concerned the pre-production and initial production Jumo engines. Added to this some of the pilots initially assigned to the 262 lacked experience. The results achieved were disappointing enough to cause Adolf Galland to have the 'operational trial' terminated in order for further training and modification to be carried out.

For the full scale 'operational' 262 deployment from ~Mar 45 a pool of pilots of unrivalled skill and experience had been gathered together. Any remaining technical problems were largely irrelevant, as the deteriorating war situation was of far greater significance to operations. Despite the chaotic conditions inside the shrinking Third Reich, this relatively small force achieved results out of all proportion to its size and strength and had a disproportionate effect on allied thinking. In the final weeks of the war it was the <u>chronic fuel situation</u> which was primarily responsible for the grounding of the world's first operational jet fighter.

I hope you can find much to agree with there. I haven't felt it necessary to shift my view greatly, and on closer reading of your last post, I don't really think you need to either. Perhaps we should both be a little more civil in future /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif although on looking through this forum that might be easier said than done! I'll freely admit that I sometimes adopt a style in here that I'd never think of in any other forum I visit - perhaps it's the company /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You might well be the same.

It's now been 4 hours and truly I don't have the time or inclination to continue this at length. Neither do I have any special desire to ever reach 200 posts. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed the debate, lively though it might have been at times /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I now see you must also have spent hours looking through books and typing.

Thank you sir for the debate. It has been... emotional /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Kernow
249 IAP


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 01:02 AM
Kernow wrote:
- Here it is:
-
- Initial 'operations' - trials if you prefer -
- (semantics, let's agree to disagree on what
- operations are) during the second half of 1944
- were seriously hampered by a number of
- technical difficulties, the most serious of which
- concerned the pre-production and initial production
- Jumo engines. Added to this some of the pilots
- initially assigned to the 262 lacked experience.
- The results achieved were disappointing enough to
- cause Adolf Galland to have the 'operational trial'
- terminated in order for further training and
- modification to be carried out.
-
- For the full scale 'operational' 262 deployment from
- ~Mar 45 a pool of pilots of unrivalled skill and
- experience had been gathered together. Any
- remaining technical problems were largely
- irrelevant, as the deteriorating war situation was
- of far greater significance to operations. Despite
- the chaotic conditions inside the shrinking Third
- Reich, this relatively small force achieved results
- out of all proportion to its size and strength and
- had a disproportionate effect on allied thinking.
- In the final weeks of the war it was the chronic
- fuel situation which was primarily responsible
- for the grounding of the world's first operational
- jet fighter.


Hi Kernow,

I basically agree with your conclusion, the difference is only in nuances. Just a few comments:

There were initial troubles with Jumo engines, but mostly in gathering a correct way of operating the engines. Jumo 004 was a very conservative design intended for quick adoption by the air force, but it was not hurried into production and by the beginning of '44 it was ready. No significant changes were made in operational tests period. Jumo flying test gradually cleared the engine for use of full thrust. For such tests bomber and Zerstorer pilots were employed for their experience on twin engine aircraft. Unfortunatelly those pilots were not acustomed with opearations on high speed aircraft, which led to a number of landing accidents. Also gear was found not to be sufficiently strenghten for Me-262 high speed landings. Though this deffect was corrected, later pilots always treated the gear with care at landings.

Also even if JG7 gathered excellent pilots, most experten stayed out of the whole project. The reasons are obvious, nobody wanted a dangerous Zerstorer job on a unproven type of aircraft, experten felt that they could do their job very well on piston aircrafts. They all knew that war was soon to end.

I don't want to take any of the merits JG7 pilots have but it's important to say that no allied aircraft could rival Me-262, and despite the indisputable air superiority of the allies Me-262 could do their missions unhampered. This is why JG7 was so successful:

check here the victories of Me-262 pilots:

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/dusen.html

click on their name to see individual victories




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/13/0307:05PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 04:32 AM
Milo said:
- Who said the Brits were behind the
- times with jet engine design?

Not me.

Btw, nice bike


<Center>
<table>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
<font color="WHITE">"If one must kill or be killed. It must be done with dignity" (The famous words of Adolf Galland)</font>
</TD>
</TR>
<tr>
<TD align="center">
http://www.d-n-i.net/images/f-22_ote.png
</tr>
</TD>
<tr>
<TD>
<center><font color="white">***F/A-22 Raptor***</font></center>
</TD>
</TR>
</table>
</CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:15 AM
i knew the guy that brought the Jet engine plans from the east coast to the west coast (usa) which is where boeing is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/griffon.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:30 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- There were initial troubles with Jumo engines, but
- mostly in gathering a correct way of operating the
- engines. Jumo 004 was a very conservative design
- intended for quick adoption by the air force, but it
- was not hurried into production and by the beginning
- of '44 it was ready. No significant changes were
- made in operational tests period. Jumo flying test
- gradually cleared the engine for use of full thrust.
- For such tests bomber and Zerstorer pilots were
- employed for their experience on twin engine
- aircraft. Unfortunatelly those pilots were not
- acustomed with opearations on high speed aircraft,
- which led to a number of landing accidents. Also
- gear was found not to be sufficiently strenghten for
- Me-262 high speed landings. Though this deffect was
- corrected, later pilots always treated the gear with
- care at landings.
-

How can you say the defects were corrected when a report in late March 1945 has the engines(34%) and u/c(35%) responsible for 69% of the a/c's downtime or that non combat losses were again because of the engines(40%) and u/c(20%) > 60%.


-
- Also even if JG7 gathered excellent pilots, most
- experten stayed out of the whole project. The
- reasons are obvious, nobody wanted a dangerous
- Zerstorer job on a unproven type of aircraft,
- experten felt that they could do their job very well
- on piston aircrafts. They all knew that war was soon
- to end.
-
- I don't want to take any of the merits JG7 pilots
- have but it's important to say that no allied
- aircraft could rival Me-262, and despite the
- indisputable air superiority of the allies Me-262
- could do their missions unhampered. This is why JG7
- was so successful:
-

Pinpricks only, they were loosing a greater percentage of a/c-pilots than they were claiming. That is not doing their mission unhampered.

Example: 18 March '45, with over 5% 262 combat losses for less than 1% EA claimed.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:30 PM
Calm down, Milo. We already won the war.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:25 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
--
--
-- There were initial troubles with Jumo engines, but
-- mostly in gathering a correct way of operating the
-- engines. Jumo 004 was a very conservative design
-- intended for quick adoption by the air force, but it
-- was not hurried into production and by the beginning
-- of '44 it was ready. No significant changes were
-- made in operational tests period. Jumo flying test
-- gradually cleared the engine for use of full thrust.
-- For such tests bomber and Zerstorer pilots were
-- employed for their experience on twin engine
-- aircraft. Unfortunatelly those pilots were not
-- acustomed with opearations on high speed aircraft,
-- which led to a number of landing accidents. Also
-- gear was found not to be sufficiently strenghten for
-- Me-262 high speed landings. Though this deffect was
-- corrected, later pilots always treated the gear with
-- care at landings.
--
-
- How can you say the defects were corrected when a
- report in late March 1945 has the engines(34%) and
- u/c(35%) responsible for 69% of the a/c's downtime
- or that non combat losses were again because of the
- engines(40%) and u/c(20%) > 60%.

No, the report says the cause why those aircraft were unserviceable, NOT WHY THEY WERE LEFT UNSERVICEABLE. There was no reason why those aircrafts should be reapaired when they did not have enough fuel for those in flying condition. Again this was not specific to Me-262 units.

And it is very normal that the engine should be the main cause for non-combat losses. This was true for all aircrafts. Also in Me-262 short service case it is very important what is the moment from which those losses were counted. They should not include the losses from trials period.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:04 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- How can you say the defects were corrected when a
-- report in late March 1945 has the engines(34%) and
-- u/c(35%) responsible for 69% of the a/c's downtime
-- or that non combat losses were again because of the
-- engines(40%) and u/c(20%) > 60%.
-
- No, the report says the cause why those aircraft
- were unserviceable, NOT WHY THEY WERE LEFT
- UNSERVICEABLE. There was no reason why those
- aircrafts should be reapaired when they did not have
- enough fuel for those in flying condition. Again
- this was not specific to Me-262 units.
-

Who said anything about "NOT WHY THEY WERE LEFT UNSERVICEABLE"? The numbers were for less than 48hr. Issy says it only took 1/2 hour to change a motor and there was 8000 produced. What happens when another a/c goes U/S? No repaired a/c to put back in the line./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif So much for the number of a/c ready for combat. Lack of fuel is a lame excuse.

-
- And it is very normal that the engine should be the
- main cause for non-combat losses. This was true for
- all aircrafts. Also in Me-262 short service case it
- is very important what is the moment from which
- those losses were counted. They should not include
- the losses from trials period.
-

Got some stats to prove what you say? How many of the P-51's non-combat losses were due to engines?

Why not from the test operational combat time? All I have been hearing is that the Jumo was a mature engine with no problems.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"