Discussion:
Book Review: _Luftwaffe Over America_, Manfried Griehl
(too old to reply)
Bay Man
2011-12-10 06:16:13 UTC
Permalink
:> 1) The Whittle W1 was a centrifugal flow turbine engine.
: Actually yes it was.
"Actually yes it was" what? A centrifugal flow turbine engine?
Well, miracle of miracles, we agree on something.
Good you are learning :-)
However, that engine wasn't the Whittle W1,
which above, you claim "is still the basis for modern
jet engines.
Correct. They first jet engines to work properly in economy,
reliability,longevity and performance. All other post WW2 engines emerged
from that no matter what configuration they ended up as. The jet engine was
then taken seriously, instead of viewed as a curio for specialist military
applications, like rockets, with the first civilian jetliner soon after
WW2 - the Comet.

Do not come back with the jokes that were the German engines in glorified
kamikaze planes. Only for the British jets the German jets would have been
regarded like rocket planes. BTW, the USSR made and flew manned rocket
planes in WW2 and about 25 motorjet planes. All flew. We always forget them
for some reason. Cold war propaganda no doubt. We foget that in 1944/45 the
Soviet piston planes were superior to German planes and that the Romanians
made and designed planes that knocked US P-38s out of the sky. But that is
another thread in itself.

No doubt you will write that the Germans, debatably, flew the first jet
powered plane in 1939 (for 10 mins). Well the Italians flew a motorjet plane
from Milan to Rome in 1940 doing around 230mph. A complete workable jet
propelled plane that never killed its pilots. Romanian Coanda claimed to
have flown a few feet in his 1911 motorjet plane as well - the first claimed
jet powered flight. The plane and engine were built and the motor ran. Maybe
these motorjets created a whole new industry. Why not? They worked, sort of,
like the German jet, which sort of worked. None of them performed, if they
did get some sort of performance they had no longevity or reliability. But
they never create a whole new mainly civilian plane engine industry for
sure.

The USSR got is its hands on the German jet engines post WW2 and got the
compressor stall problems sorted and used it. They soon dropped the dog of
an engine when they got hold of a RR Nene copying that.

The fact remain that the world's first proper fully functioning workable jet
engine was the Whittle W1, which was one amongst many designs under R&D. The
engine that spawned all other post WW2 engines and started the world-wide
jet industry. The jet engine made the world far smaller. You will find the
later engine configurations have the prime points patented by Whittle along
the way. No doubt you never knew the Germans copied his patents in their
failed attempt.
Gordon
2011-12-10 07:15:46 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 9, 10:16 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The USSR got is its hands on the German jet engines post WW2 and got the
compressor stall problems sorted and used it. They soon dropped the dog of
an engine when they got hold of a RR Nene copying that.
That "dog", in the form of two Jumos fitted end to end and coupled to
counter-rotating propellers (in the form of the NK-12 engine), has
been powering thousands of Tu-95, -114, and -126 Bears for half a
century. The Nene was a dead end, after a good run - axial flow and
high bypass turbofans were the wave of the future. The Russians
dropped their Nene copy after only using it on a couple of early jets,
so the Nene and its various copies did not lead to any long-term use
of that style of engine. The Axial flow jet engines common to
generations of jet fighters around the world owed more to wartime
German designs than to the Nene.
Bay Man
2011-12-10 10:03:50 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon" <***@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message news:6cb6c876-de00-4c14-a965-***@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 10:16 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
The USSR got is its hands on the German jet engines post WW2 and got the
compressor stall problems sorted and used it. They soon dropped the dog of
an engine when they got hold of a RR Nene copying that.
That "dog", in the form of two Jumos fitted end to end and coupled to
counter-rotating propellers (in the form of the NK-12 engine), has
been powering thousands of Tu-95, -114, and -126 Bears for half a
century.
<<<<<

The Jumbo was dog of an engine and in WW2 pretty awful. The Soviets did not
use "Jumos". They used axial designs they first saw in Jumos. No one could
run e Jumo as just sucked far too much fuel.
The Nene was a dead end, after a good run
<<<<

The Nene was used in the MIG 15 which gave allied fighters a run of their
money and in many way was superior to the US Sabre. The Nene design
(centrifugal compressor) is used heavily in helicopters and the likes. Read
again.
- axial flow and
high bypass turbofans were the wave of the future.
They were not the wave. They were just an arrangement for certain
applications. They never replaced centrifugal jets which are still heavily
made and used.

<<<<
The Axial flow jet engines common to
generations of jet fighters around the world owed more to wartime
German designs than to the Nene.
<<<<<

The Germans did not invent axial designs and their jet engines were just
plain bad. They just happen to have had axial designs. That did not mean no
one knew of axial designs or it was the first to run.

The jet engine that proved jets were a "revolutionary" engine and not a
niche military application was the Whittle W1 - centrifugal, axial, bypass
or no pass, it was the engine that proved jets could operate in:

1. Economy (in: fuel, maintenance, manufacture)
2. Reliability,
3. Longevity,
4. Performance.

The Whittle W1 engine's positive attributes spurned massive research into
the various configurations resulting in the various types of jets for
various applications. Most for civilian use.

If the UK had not developed jets at all, and all we ended up with after WW2
was the appalling Jumo, this massive research would not have occurred. The
Jumo would have gone the way of the motorjet plane and rocket planes - niche
applications for military use only. The Jumo lacked numbers 1 to 3 above. No
maker would bother to spend on R&D for massive civilian use, unless numbers
1 to 4 above were met.

Understand the importance and impact of the Whittle W1. That engines shouted
jets are here and can be used for civilian planes in an airline revolution,
the Jumo never said anything at all.
Bay Man
2011-12-10 10:18:31 UTC
Permalink
The Jumo would have gone the way of the motorjet plane and rocket planes -
niche applications for military use only.
BTW, the design of motorjets was known since the early 1900s. In the 1920s &
30s, the UK and Germany dismissed these designs as poor. Every time they
put together a design and did the numbers they just did not add up. They
could have put one together to show that jet thrust works, but they knew
that so did not waste time and money on an engine design that was inherently
flawed and offered nothing over prop planes
Orval Fairbairn
2011-12-10 17:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
The Jumo would have gone the way of the motorjet plane and rocket planes -
niche applications for military use only.
BTW, the design of motorjets was known since the early 1900s. In the 1920s &
30s, the UK and Germany dismissed these designs as poor. Every time they
put together a design and did the numbers they just did not add up. They
could have put one together to show that jet thrust works, but they knew
that so did not waste time and money on an engine design that was inherently
flawed and offered nothing over prop planes
The big problem with the early jets was the unavailability of
high-temperature alloys. The reason the Jumo was so bad is that it used
regular steel and had poor fuel control.

The Nene had a centrifugal flow compressor, as did the Whittle and the
J-33 used in the T-33/F-80s. Centrifugal flow compressors have a limit
of about 6.5:1 compression ratio, while axial flow compressors can
achieve much higher compression.

Jet engine advances have depended very much on metallurgy, in which the
US has led the world for the last 60 years.
Eunometic
2011-12-10 22:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with the early jets was the unavailability of
high-temperature alloys. The reason the Jumo was so bad is that it used
regular steel and had poor fuel control.
The Nene had a centrifugal flow compressor, as did the Whittle and the
J-33 used in the T-33/F-80s. Centrifugal flow compressors have a limit
of about 6.5:1 compression ratio, while axial flow compressors can
achieve much higher compression.
Jet engine advances have depended very much on metallurgy, in which the
US has led the world for the last 60 years.
The axial vs radial argument is fairly hackneyed.

Hans von Ohain and his sidekick Max Hahn (the genious garage mechanic
owner who invented the hard stuff like flame holders) first jet engine
had a centrifugal-radial compressor, a double reverse flow combustion
chamber even had a radial inflow turbine.

von Ohain knew the axial type was the future but chose radial
compressor vs radial inflow turbine because of their self matching
characteristics.

The British did produce the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 for the Meteor
II. It was an axial.

The Germans were pressing and stamping everything in their engines:
including the compressor and turbine. The British machined
everything, they could afford to and they could afford to use far
larger amounts of nickel and chromium. The German engine therefore
cost a fraction of the British one; it lasted less of course and fhe
performance was less but then if shot up or damaged the loss was less
as were spare parts. There was only 700 hours to make a jumo: a
fraction of the cost of a piston engined aircraft.

They did produce one 'machined' engine, the HeS 008; its performance
was excellent.
Keith W
2011-12-10 23:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunometic
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with the early jets was the unavailability of
high-temperature alloys. The reason the Jumo was so bad is that it
used regular steel and had poor fuel control.
The Nene had a centrifugal flow compressor, as did the Whittle and
the J-33 used in the T-33/F-80s. Centrifugal flow compressors have a
limit of about 6.5:1 compression ratio, while axial flow compressors
can achieve much higher compression.
Jet engine advances have depended very much on metallurgy, in which
the US has led the world for the last 60 years.
The axial vs radial argument is fairly hackneyed.
Hans von Ohain and his sidekick Max Hahn (the genious garage mechanic
owner who invented the hard stuff like flame holders) first jet engine
had a centrifugal-radial compressor, a double reverse flow combustion
chamber even had a radial inflow turbine.
von Ohain knew the axial type was the future but chose radial
compressor vs radial inflow turbine because of their self matching
characteristics.
Indeed but the HeS 6 & 8 Centrifugal engines were dropped by the RLM
in favour of the axial flow engines from Junkers and BMW
Post by Eunometic
The British did produce the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 for the Meteor
II. It was an axial.
Just so but it was a backup in case the Whittle engine didnt work.
Post by Eunometic
including the compressor and turbine. The British machined
everything, they could afford to and they could afford to use far
larger amounts of nickel and chromium. The German engine therefore
cost a fraction of the British one; it lasted less of course and fhe
performance was less but then if shot up or damaged the loss was less
as were spare parts. There was only 700 hours to make a jumo: a
fraction of the cost of a piston engined aircraft.
Trouble is the Jumo was good for 25 hours in service at best
Post by Eunometic
They did produce one 'machined' engine, the HeS 008; its performance
was excellent.
And it was discontinued - Doh !

Keith
Bay Man
2011-12-11 10:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
Trouble is the Jumo was good for 25 hours in service at best
More like 12. Many were only a few hours and burnt out in flight killing the
pilot.rendering he plane little more than a kamikaze.
Gordon
2011-12-11 21:50:19 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 11, 2:08 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Keith W
Trouble is the Jumo was good for 25 hours in service at best
More like 12.
...which is amazing when you are building a turbojet out of mild steel
and other inappropriate materials. It was not a fault of the engine,
it was a lack of appropriate materials.
Post by Bay Man
Many were only a few hours and burnt out in flight killing the
pilot.rendering he plane little more than a kamikaze.
Cite. Tell me the dates and names of pilots that this happened to,
please. The reason I ask is that myself, a couple other Americans
(sorry, I know that bothers you), four Germans and three Brits have
been working together, researching the Me 262 for the last 20 years
(although most of us have been reading/researching it most of our
lives as a hobby). We don't bother with published stuff, although a
rare pig will hold up a truffle - we tend to spend our lives shuffling
German photos, German papers, and Ultra decrypts, so don't worry, we
haven't sullied our research with too much American influence.

In the boxes of RLM and unit files in my office, including the "master
file" of Me 262 accidents due to all non-combat causes (4 inches thick
of post mortem crash and incident reports as compiled by the Technical
Officer of III/KG 51), I don't recall running into more than an
occasional mention of an engine 'burning out in flight' and Ehrler is
the only man that qualified as a Kamikaze in an Me 262 (and that was
quite intentional and had zero to do with his perfectly-functioning
engines).

Your bias against the Me 262 and its engines is noted. A realistic
view is that it opened the door to jets as functional weapons of war,
which opened the door to the use of jets in peace. We're going to
have to disagree here because your reading has led you to a place
where you believe something to be a fact, and your mind is made up. I
didn't come to this conclusion because I am an American, but that
broad brush you slap us all with means that won't really matter, will
it?
Daryl
2011-12-11 22:49:07 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 11, 2:08 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Keith W
Trouble is the Jumo was good for 25 hours in service at best
More like 12.
...which is amazing when you are building a turbojet out of mild steel
and other inappropriate materials. It was not a fault of the engine,
it was a lack of appropriate materials.
Post by Bay Man
Many were only a few hours and burnt out in flight killing the
pilot.rendering he plane little more than a kamikaze.
Cite. Tell me the dates and names of pilots that this happened to,
please. The reason I ask is that myself, a couple other Americans
(sorry, I know that bothers you), four Germans and three Brits have
been working together, researching the Me 262 for the last 20 years
(although most of us have been reading/researching it most of our
lives as a hobby). We don't bother with published stuff, although a
rare pig will hold up a truffle - we tend to spend our lives shuffling
German photos, German papers, and Ultra decrypts, so don't worry, we
haven't sullied our research with too much American influence.
There has been many cites given on how unreliable the German Jets
in combat were. No, I don't remember reading where both engines
failed. But the failures were very, very high. Ideally, the
engine life was set to 25 hours. Most didn't make that time.
In the boxes of RLM and unit files in my office, including the "master
file" of Me 262 accidents due to all non-combat causes (4 inches thick
of post mortem crash and incident reports as compiled by the Technical
Officer of III/KG 51), I don't recall running into more than an
occasional mention of an engine 'burning out in flight' and Ehrler is
the only man that qualified as a Kamikaze in an Me 262 (and that was
quite intentional and had zero to do with his perfectly-functioning
engines).
Your bias against the Me 262 and its engines is noted. A realistic
view is that it opened the door to jets as functional weapons of war,
which opened the door to the use of jets in peace. We're going to
have to disagree here because your reading has led you to a place
where you believe something to be a fact, and your mind is made up. I
didn't come to this conclusion because I am an American, but that
broad brush you slap us all with means that won't really matter, will
it?
And, add to that statement, putting a weapons system too new into
service.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Alan Dicey
2011-12-12 00:41:17 UTC
Permalink
BZ Gordon. Any estimate on when you're going to publish yet? I'll be
in the queue at the bookshop.
Bay Man
2011-12-12 01:37:54 UTC
Permalink
BZ Gordon. Any estimate on when you're going to publish yet? I'll be in
the queue at the bookshop.
Go to the Disney section - fairy tales.
Gordon
2011-12-12 16:17:34 UTC
Permalink
BZ Gordon.  Any estimate on when you're going to publish yet?  I'll be
in the queue at the bookshop.
Thanks, Alan. Situation is that we have a blocker that is advanced in
age. Can't publish until he is gone, sadly. Rather not get sued by
a person with a truck filled with money at this point. :\
Bay Man
2011-12-12 01:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Your bias against the Me 262 and its engines
is noted.
Not biased - REALISTIC. I am not obsessed with one plane as you are .
Obsessions cloud reality.
Post by Gordon
A realistic view is that it opened the
door to jets as functional weapons of war,
which opened the door to the use of jets in peace.
Total YANKEE tripe!!! The Meteor was operational - in hunting the enemy,
BEFORE the 262. The Meteor was used until the mid 1980s. The Meteor has
three versions during WW2 with the F.3 entering in Dec 44. Where is this
wonder jet that is showing the way, that in reality was only fit for
attacking antiquated lumbering bombers in daylight? Did this German wonder
plane inspire the Meteor, which actually came before it?

The 262 would have been little more than a curio like the rocket planes
which had the same short range anti-bomber interception function, and left
to niche military functions. The Meteor proved jet flight was feasible for
all applications - not just attacking slow bombers in daylight. During WW2
the Brits were designing jet bombers and jet civilian airliners, which
materialised after WW2, with the airliner first as war needs slowed up until
Korea and the Cold War.

The plane that proved jets were here and created a massive jet business was
the Meteor. It ticked all the boxes, while the half developed crock, the
262, fell way short.

You are seeing what you want to see. I have researched this plane and it
does not stand up in any way as a milestone plane that influenced all
others. Even the Ruskies who never had jets in WW2, apart from a flyable
R&D motorjet, wouldn't fly them after WW2, despite having lots of these
so-called advanced airframes. They gave a few to the Czechs, now with
reliable engines, who dropped this wonder plane after a year.

Each time I look and read some of the crap about this crock of a plane I
could vomit. No one after WW2 copied anything from that plane. The USSR
copied the engine and improved on them because they had no real research on
jets, so that is all they knew, and until the Brits gave them a Rolls-Royce
Nene jet engine were limited. The Rolls-Royce Nene, with nearly 5,000lbs of
thrust, was double the power of any German engine which the Soviets were
basically using, as well as having other advantages lkike not drinking fuel
like crazy. The Soviets used their own airframe designs and had the first
swept wing jet plane as well. The remarkable MIG 15 first flew in 1947 and
owed much of its design more on the Meteor than the 262, with the pilot
forward position, which became common on
all jet fighters. The MIG 15 had well swept wings. As the Soviets had no R&D
on jet lanes or engines, it woudlbe natural to base an airframe on the only
jet plane they had their hands on - the 262. They never. So much for the
influence of the 262 airframe on subsequent aircraft.

The Yanks are embarrassed that the Brits gave them jet engines, as no
research was under way in the US, and assisted in designing their early
planes. So they point to the Germans as the innovators we all have supposed
to have copied. The US never had any research going on and the Brits gave
them the engines. No need to feel embarrassed about it. We were on the
same side.

All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
Daryl
2011-12-12 06:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Your bias against the Me 262 and its engines
is noted.
Not biased - REALISTIC. I am not obsessed with one plane as you are .
Obsessions cloud reality.
Post by Gordon
A realistic view is that it opened the
door to jets as functional weapons of war,
which opened the door to the use of jets in peace.
Total YANKEE tripe!!! The Meteor was operational - in hunting the
enemy,
BEFORE the 262. The Meteor was used until the mid 1980s. The
Meteor has
three versions during WW2 with the F.3 entering in Dec 44. Where
is this
wonder jet that is showing the way, that in reality was only fit for
attacking antiquated lumbering bombers in daylight? Did this
German wonder
plane inspire the Meteor, which actually came before it?
The 262 would have been little more than a curio like the rocket planes
which had the same short range anti-bomber interception function, and left
to niche military functions. The Meteor proved jet flight was
feasible for
all applications - not just attacking slow bombers in daylight. During WW2
the Brits were designing jet bombers and jet civilian airliners, which
materialised after WW2, with the airliner first as war needs
slowed up until
Korea and the Cold War.
The plane that proved jets were here and created a massive jet
business was
the Meteor. It ticked all the boxes, while the half developed
crock, the
262, fell way short.
You are seeing what you want to see. I have researched this plane and it
does not stand up in any way as a milestone plane that influenced all
others. Even the Ruskies who never had jets in WW2, apart from a
flyable
R&D motorjet, wouldn't fly them after WW2, despite having lots of these
so-called advanced airframes. They gave a few to the Czechs, now with
reliable engines, who dropped this wonder plane after a year.
Each time I look and read some of the crap about this crock of a plane I
could vomit. No one after WW2 copied anything from that plane.
The USSR
copied the engine and improved on them because they had no real research on
jets, so that is all they knew, and until the Brits gave them a Rolls-Royce
Nene jet engine were limited. The Rolls-Royce Nene, with nearly 5,000lbs of
thrust, was double the power of any German engine which the
Soviets were
basically using, as well as having other advantages lkike not
drinking fuel like crazy. The Soviets used their own airframe
designs and had the first swept wing jet plane as well. The
remarkable MIG 15 first flew in 1947 and owed much of its design
more on the Meteor than the 262, with the pilot forward position,
which became common on
all jet fighters. The MIG 15 had well swept wings. As the Soviets
had no R&D on jet lanes or engines, it woudlbe natural to base an
airframe on the only jet plane they had their hands on - the 262.
They never. So much for the influence of the 262 airframe on
subsequent aircraft.
The Yanks are embarrassed that the Brits gave them jet engines, as no
research was under way in the US, and assisted in designing their early
planes. So they point to the Germans as the innovators we all
have supposed
to have copied. The US never had any research going on and the
Brits gave
them the engines. No need to feel embarrassed about it. We were
on the
same side.
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
Wrong answer. The US took the Whittle/Goblin and made a better
version called the J-33. And yes, that was during WWII.
Ushering in the P-80C/t-33 that fly even today around the globe.
There was NO German influence in the P-80 outside of the
introduction of the 262 that hastened it's development.

Meteor: March 5, 1943
ME262 April 22, 1943
P-80 8 June 1944

Now to throw your story out of the window.

Lockheed J-37, First flown in early 1934. Research stopped in 1936.

Making the J-37 the first of all of them. The HE-178 (a research
and test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine. The J-37 did surface as the
T-35. Then there was the T-37.

Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years. No Brit or German influence.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Eunometic
2011-12-12 10:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Your bias against the Me 262 and its engines
is noted.
Not biased - REALISTIC. I am not obsessed with one plane as you are .
Obsessions cloud reality.
Post by Gordon
A realistic view is that it opened the
door to jets as functional weapons of war,
which opened the door to the use of jets in peace.
Total YANKEE tripe!!! The Meteor was operational - in hunting the
enemy,
BEFORE the 262. The Meteor was used until the mid 1980s. The
Meteor has
three versions during WW2 with the F.3 entering in Dec 44. Where
is this
wonder jet that is showing the way, that in reality was only fit for
attacking antiquated lumbering bombers in daylight? Did this
German wonder
plane inspire the Meteor, which actually came before it?
The 262 would have been little more than a curio like the rocket planes
which had the same short range anti-bomber interception function, and left
to niche military functions. The Meteor proved jet flight was feasible for
all applications - not just attacking slow bombers in daylight. During WW2
the Brits were designing jet bombers and jet civilian airliners, which
materialised after WW2, with the airliner first as war needs
slowed up until
Korea and the Cold War.
The plane that proved jets were here and created a massive jet business was
the Meteor. It ticked all the boxes, while the half developed crock, the
262, fell way short.
You are seeing what you want to see. I have researched this plane and it
does not stand up in any way as a milestone plane that influenced all
others. Even the Ruskies who never had jets in WW2, apart from a
flyable
R&D motorjet, wouldn't fly them after WW2, despite having lots of these
so-called advanced airframes. They gave a few to the Czechs, now with
reliable engines, who dropped this wonder plane after a year.
Each time I look and read some of the crap about this crock of a plane I
could vomit. No one after WW2 copied anything from that plane. The USSR
copied the engine and improved on them because they had no real research on
jets, so that is all they knew, and until the Brits gave them a Rolls-Royce
Nene jet engine were limited. The Rolls-Royce Nene, with nearly 5,000lbs of
thrust, was double the power of any German engine which the
Soviets were
basically using, as well as having other advantages lkike not
drinking fuel like crazy. The Soviets used their own airframe
designs and had the first swept wing jet plane as well. The
remarkable MIG 15 first flew in 1947 and owed much of its design
more on the Meteor than the 262, with the pilot forward position,
which became common on
all jet fighters. The MIG 15 had well swept wings. As the Soviets
had no R&D on jet lanes or engines, it woudlbe natural to base an
airframe on the only jet plane they had their hands on - the 262.
They never. So much for the influence of the 262 airframe on
subsequent aircraft.
The Yanks are embarrassed that the Brits gave them jet engines, as no
research was under way in the US, and assisted in designing their early
planes. So they point to the Germans as the innovators we all have supposed
to have copied. The US never had any research going on and the Brits gave
them the engines. No need to feel embarrassed about it. We were
on the
same side.
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
Wrong answer.  The US took the Whittle/Goblin and made a better
version called the J-33.  And yes, that was during WWII.
Ushering in the P-80C/t-33 that fly even today around the globe.
  There was  NO German influence in the P-80 outside of the
introduction of the 262 that hastened it's development.
Meteor:  March 5, 1943
ME262   April 22, 1943
P-80    8 June 1944
Now to throw your story out of the window.
Lockheed J-37,  First flown in early 1934.  Research stopped in 1936.
Making the J-37 the first of all of them.  The HE-178 (a research
and test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine.  The J-37 did surface as the
T-35.  Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years.  No Brit or German influence.
--http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV.  Tons of Military shows and
programs.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Err, both the J-35 and J-37 were first run in 1946
Jim Wilkins
2011-12-12 12:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Making the J-37 the first of all of them. The HE-178 (a research
and test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine. The J-37 did surface as the
T-35. Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years. No Brit or German influence.
- Err, both the J-35 and J-37 were first run in 1946

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm

The L133 and its L1000 axial-flow jet engine were paper projects (of the man
who designed the SR-71) that didn't address the perceived threats of the
1930's when the width of the oceans protected the US from serious aerial
assault. Nathan Price coulda and woulda hastened its development with more
funding, but Whittle's simpler and less efficient engine design was closer
to production.

jsw
Bay Man
2011-12-12 13:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Making the J-37 the first of all of them. The HE-178 (a research
and test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine. The J-37 did surface as the
T-35. Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years. No Brit or German influence.
- Err, both the J-35 and J-37 were first run in 1946
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm
The L133 and its L1000 axial-flow jet engine were paper projects (of the
man who designed the SR-71) that didn't address the perceived threats of
the 1930's when the width of the oceans protected the US from serious
aerial assault. Nathan Price coulda and woulda hastened its development
with more funding, but Whittle's simpler and less efficient engine design
was closer to production.
"less efficient"? British jets where much more advanced and fully
developed, having TWICE the power-to-weight ratio and HALF the specific fuel
consumption of the 262 engine.
Jim Wilkins
2011-12-12 13:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
...Nathan Price coulda and woulda hastened its development with more
funding, but Whittle's simpler and less efficient engine design was
closer to production.
"less efficient"? British jets where much more advanced and fully
developed, having TWICE the power-to-weight ratio and HALF the specific
fuel consumption of the 262 engine.
You are arguing against your own bigoted, befuddled misinterpretations of
what others posted. Go back to sleep.
Peter Stickney
2011-12-26 18:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Making the J-37 the first of all of them. The HE-178 (a research and
test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939. Making the J-37 the first
engine. The J-37 did surface as the T-35. Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at least 5
years. No Brit or German influence.
- Err, both the J-35 and J-37 were first run in 1946
Minor correction - the J35 (TG-180) first ran in early 1944.
The observation of both the running J33 and J35, at 400 lbf
thrust each during a tour of GE induced Hooker to start
Rolls on building the Nene (And by association, the Derwent.)

Of course, by that time, the U.S. and Brits were looking at jets
in the postwar world.
Post by Jim Wilkins
Nathan Price coulda and woulda hastened its development
with more funding, but Whittle's simpler and less efficient engine
design was closer to production.
Whittle's simpler, but effective design boggled many of the early
jet engine designers/theoreticians. One of the causes of the delay
in Air Ministry funding of Whittle's prototypes was that their
technical expert on Gas Turbines, Dr. A.A. Griffith, was, in many
senses, a rival, with extremely complicated and, ultimately,
unworkable designs of his own. He refused to believe that
a workable jet engine could be so simple.

It's interesting to think of what would have happened if the
Air Ministry had an analyst without a vested interest, or if
the Ministry of Supply hadn't decided that Rover was going
to do the production on the Welland. The Brits could very easily
had Meteors, or their equivalents, in service 2 or possible 3 years
earlier.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
David E. Powell
2019-07-17 19:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stickney
Post by Jim Wilkins
Making the J-37 the first of all of them. The HE-178 (a research and
test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939. Making the J-37 the first
engine. The J-37 did surface as the T-35. Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at least 5
years. No Brit or German influence.
- Err, both the J-35 and J-37 were first run in 1946
Minor correction - the J35 (TG-180) first ran in early 1944.
The observation of both the running J33 and J35, at 400 lbf
thrust each during a tour of GE induced Hooker to start
Rolls on building the Nene (And by association, the Derwent.)
Of course, by that time, the U.S. and Brits were looking at jets
in the postwar world.
Post by Jim Wilkins
Nathan Price coulda and woulda hastened its development
with more funding, but Whittle's simpler and less efficient engine
design was closer to production.
Whittle's simpler, but effective design boggled many of the early
jet engine designers/theoreticians. One of the causes of the delay
in Air Ministry funding of Whittle's prototypes was that their
technical expert on Gas Turbines, Dr. A.A. Griffith, was, in many
senses, a rival, with extremely complicated and, ultimately,
unworkable designs of his own. He refused to believe that
a workable jet engine could be so simple.
It's interesting to think of what would have happened if the
Air Ministry had an analyst without a vested interest, or if
the Ministry of Supply hadn't decided that Rover was going
to do the production on the Welland. The Brits could very easily
had Meteors, or their equivalents, in service 2 or possible 3 years
earlier.
Now this would have been very interesting. 1943 viable jets might have included bombers, as well as fighters, for the RAF. Given where their priorities were at the time. Of course, at that point, the Mosquito was still very hard for anyone to catch.
Post by Peter Stickney
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
Daryl
2011-12-12 13:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunometic
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Your bias against the Me 262 and its engines
is noted.
Not biased - REALISTIC. I am not obsessed with one plane as you are .
Obsessions cloud reality.
Post by Gordon
A realistic view is that it opened the
door to jets as functional weapons of war,
which opened the door to the use of jets in peace.
Total YANKEE tripe!!! The Meteor was operational - in hunting the
enemy,
BEFORE the 262. The Meteor was used until the mid 1980s. The
Meteor has
three versions during WW2 with the F.3 entering in Dec 44. Where
is this
wonder jet that is showing the way, that in reality was only fit for
attacking antiquated lumbering bombers in daylight? Did this
German wonder
plane inspire the Meteor, which actually came before it?
The 262 would have been little more than a curio like the rocket planes
which had the same short range anti-bomber interception function, and left
to niche military functions. The Meteor proved jet flight was feasible for
all applications - not just attacking slow bombers in daylight. During WW2
the Brits were designing jet bombers and jet civilian airliners, which
materialised after WW2, with the airliner first as war needs
slowed up until
Korea and the Cold War.
The plane that proved jets were here and created a massive jet business was
the Meteor. It ticked all the boxes, while the half developed crock, the
262, fell way short.
You are seeing what you want to see. I have researched this plane and it
does not stand up in any way as a milestone plane that influenced all
others. Even the Ruskies who never had jets in WW2, apart from a
flyable
R&D motorjet, wouldn't fly them after WW2, despite having lots of these
so-called advanced airframes. They gave a few to the Czechs, now with
reliable engines, who dropped this wonder plane after a year.
Each time I look and read some of the crap about this crock of a plane I
could vomit. No one after WW2 copied anything from that plane. The USSR
copied the engine and improved on them because they had no real research on
jets, so that is all they knew, and until the Brits gave them a Rolls-Royce
Nene jet engine were limited. The Rolls-Royce Nene, with nearly 5,000lbs of
thrust, was double the power of any German engine which the
Soviets were
basically using, as well as having other advantages lkike not
drinking fuel like crazy. The Soviets used their own airframe
designs and had the first swept wing jet plane as well. The
remarkable MIG 15 first flew in 1947 and owed much of its design
more on the Meteor than the 262, with the pilot forward position,
which became common on
all jet fighters. The MIG 15 had well swept wings. As the Soviets
had no R&D on jet lanes or engines, it woudlbe natural to base an
airframe on the only jet plane they had their hands on - the 262.
They never. So much for the influence of the 262 airframe on
subsequent aircraft.
The Yanks are embarrassed that the Brits gave them jet engines, as no
research was under way in the US, and assisted in designing their early
planes. So they point to the Germans as the innovators we all have supposed
to have copied. The US never had any research going on and the Brits gave
them the engines. No need to feel embarrassed about it. We were
on the
same side.
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
Wrong answer. The US took the Whittle/Goblin and made a better
version called the J-33. And yes, that was during WWII.
Ushering in the P-80C/t-33 that fly even today around the globe.
There was NO German influence in the P-80 outside of the
introduction of the 262 that hastened it's development.
Meteor: March 5, 1943
ME262 April 22, 1943
P-80 8 June 1944
Now to throw your story out of the window.
Lockheed J-37, First flown in early 1934. Research stopped in 1936.
Making the J-37 the first of all of them. The HE-178 (a research
and test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine. The J-37 did surface as the
T-35. Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years. No Brit or German influence.
--http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Err, both the J-35 and J-37 were first run in 1946
Ah, but what brought those to creation? And brought the world
todays Axial Flow Jet Engines? It wasn't the Jumo, it was the
lockheed aircraft steam turbine engine. It flew in 1934. The Gas
turbine version was test bedded and offered to the US Military by
1939. It was just too futuristic as well as the aircraft it was
to be used in.

The Lockheed Aircraft Steam Turbine was equaling the performance
of the existing Aircraft Gas engines of it's time. But, like
many other promising projects, the proper funding was never
presented by the US Military for development.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Bay Man
2011-12-12 13:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunometic
Err, both the J-35 and J-37 were first run in 1946
Ah, but what brought those to creation? And brought the world todays Axial
Flow Jet Engines? It wasn't the Jumo, it was the lockheed aircraft steam
turbine engine.
Are you serious? I think you are.
The Lockheed Aircraft Steam Turbine was equaling the performance of the
existing Aircraft Gas engines of it's time. But, like many other
promising projects, the proper funding was never presented by the US
Military for development.
The likelihood of this steam turbine being a 100% jet engines was very slim
indeed. It was dropped for good reason. It offered complexity with no
advantages over piston engines. They knew they could improve piston engines
as well, as the knew of the RR Merlin, and they did.
Keith W
2011-12-12 18:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Eunometic
Err, both the J-35 and J-37 were first run in 1946
Ah, but what brought those to creation? And brought the world
todays Axial Flow Jet Engines? It wasn't the Jumo, it was the
lockheed aircraft steam turbine engine. It flew in 1934. The Gas
turbine version was test bedded and offered to the US Military by
1939. It was just too futuristic as well as the aircraft it was
to be used in.
The 1933 Steam Turbine was developed by Doble Steam Motors
a rather unsuccessful manufacturer of steam powered automobiles
which sold a grand number of 36 cars between 1921 and 1931.
Post by Daryl
The Lockheed Aircraft Steam Turbine was equaling the performance
of the existing Aircraft Gas engines of it's time. But, like
many other promising projects, the proper funding was never
presented by the US Military for development.
There was no Lockheed Steam Turbine, Nathan Price took
a job with Lockheed after Doble's firm collapsed. The problem
with aerial steam engines has always been the weight of the
boiler not the performance of the sengine.

Keith
Keith W
2011-12-12 10:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Your bias against the Me 262 and its engines
is noted.
Not biased - REALISTIC. I am not obsessed with one plane as you are .
Obsessions cloud reality.
Post by Gordon
A realistic view is that it opened the
door to jets as functional weapons of war,
which opened the door to the use of jets in peace.
Total YANKEE tripe!!! The Meteor was operational - in hunting the
enemy,
BEFORE the 262. The Meteor was used until the mid 1980s. The
Meteor has
three versions during WW2 with the F.3 entering in Dec 44. Where
is this
wonder jet that is showing the way, that in reality was only fit for
attacking antiquated lumbering bombers in daylight? Did this
German wonder
plane inspire the Meteor, which actually came before it?
The 262 would have been little more than a curio like the rocket planes
which had the same short range anti-bomber interception function, and left
to niche military functions. The Meteor proved jet flight was
feasible for
all applications - not just attacking slow bombers in daylight. During WW2
the Brits were designing jet bombers and jet civilian airliners, which
materialised after WW2, with the airliner first as war needs
slowed up until
Korea and the Cold War.
The plane that proved jets were here and created a massive jet business was
the Meteor. It ticked all the boxes, while the half developed
crock, the
262, fell way short.
You are seeing what you want to see. I have researched this plane and it
does not stand up in any way as a milestone plane that influenced all
others. Even the Ruskies who never had jets in WW2, apart from a
flyable
R&D motorjet, wouldn't fly them after WW2, despite having lots of these
so-called advanced airframes. They gave a few to the Czechs, now with
reliable engines, who dropped this wonder plane after a year.
Each time I look and read some of the crap about this crock of a plane I
could vomit. No one after WW2 copied anything from that plane. The USSR
copied the engine and improved on them because they had no real research on
jets, so that is all they knew, and until the Brits gave them a Rolls-Royce
Nene jet engine were limited. The Rolls-Royce Nene, with nearly 5,000lbs of
thrust, was double the power of any German engine which the
Soviets were
basically using, as well as having other advantages lkike not
drinking fuel like crazy. The Soviets used their own airframe
designs and had the first swept wing jet plane as well. The
remarkable MIG 15 first flew in 1947 and owed much of its design
more on the Meteor than the 262, with the pilot forward position,
which became common on
all jet fighters. The MIG 15 had well swept wings. As the Soviets
had no R&D on jet lanes or engines, it woudlbe natural to base an
airframe on the only jet plane they had their hands on - the 262.
They never. So much for the influence of the 262 airframe on
subsequent aircraft.
The Yanks are embarrassed that the Brits gave them jet engines, as no
research was under way in the US, and assisted in designing their early
planes. So they point to the Germans as the innovators we all
have supposed
to have copied. The US never had any research going on and the Brits gave
them the engines. No need to feel embarrassed about it. We were
on the
same side.
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
Wrong answer. The US took the Whittle/Goblin and made a better
version called the J-33. And yes, that was during WWII.
Huh !

The J-33 was a development of the Whittle engine but the Goblin was
quite a different engine.
Post by Daryl
Ushering in the P-80C/t-33 that fly even today around the globe.
There was NO German influence in the P-80 outside of the
introduction of the 262 that hastened it's development.
Meteor: March 5, 1943
ME262 April 22, 1943
P-80 8 June 1944
Now to throw your story out of the window.
Lockheed J-37, First flown in early 1934. Research stopped in 1936.
Making the J-37 the first of all of them.
Well no. While Nathan Price did some work on an engine codenamed
the L1000 starting in 1938 this used a reciprocating compressor
arrangement and was dropped in 1943.

The new design that emerged became the J37 which first ran
in 1946.
Post by Daryl
The HE-178 (a research
and test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine.
Not unless someone had a time machine, the simple fact is
that the J37 didnt run until 1946.
Post by Daryl
The J-37 did surface as the
T-35.
The T35 was a Curtiss Wright built turboprop which
first ran in June 1946, the design was indeed based on the
J37 core.
Post by Daryl
Then there was the T-37.
Which was a Northrop designed turboprop
Post by Daryl
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years. No Brit or German influence.
The J35 was a GE/Allison axial flow engine that first ran in 1946.
It was a very successful design but it was a post war
engine that didnt enter service until 1947.

The first US built jet engine to run was the GE J31 which was
a license built Whittle W.1 based on an engine passed to
GE by the Tizard mission, this design was passed to Allison
where it was developed into the J-33

The J31 of course powered the first US designed jet aircraft
the Bell P-59 Aircomet

Keith
Bay Man
2011-12-12 12:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
Well no. While Nathan Price did some work on an engine codenamed
the L1000 starting in 1938 this used a reciprocating compressor
arrangement and was dropped in 1943.
US engineers because fo their poor findings had said turbo jets were
unfeasible. Major General Henry Arnold said this to the Brits while in
London. They said, "do you want to see our plane". He attended a
demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April and May 1941. The US were
given the plans of the engine.
Post by Keith W
The new design that emerged became the J37 which first ran
in 1946.
Exactly.
Post by Keith W
Not unless someone had a time machine, the simple fact is
that the J37 didnt run until 1946.
Maybe Price was developing a time machine that worked.
Post by Keith W
Post by Daryl
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years. No Brit or German influence.
The J35 was a GE/Allison axial flow engine that first ran in 1946.
It was a very successful design but it was a post war
engine that didnt enter service until 1947.
The first US built jet engine to run was the GE J31 which was
a license built Whittle W.1 based on an engine passed to
GE by the Tizard mission, this design was passed to Allison
where it was developed into the J-33
The J31 of course powered the first US designed jet aircraft
the Bell P-59 Aircomet
Jim Wilkins
2011-12-12 13:08:27 UTC
Permalink
... Well no. While Nathan Price did some work on an engine codenamed
the L1000 starting in 1938 this used a reciprocating compressor
arrangement and was dropped in 1943.
...
Keith
Price attempted to match the specific fuel consumption of a piston engine,
which was necessary for the long range strategic bombers and interceptors we
would need if England fell. The B-29, -36 and P-38 were the piston versions.
Whittle's engine was better for an air superiority fighter. We couldn't
safely anticipate our 1944 success against the Luftwaffe in 1939.

jsw
Keith W
2011-12-12 17:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
... Well no. While Nathan Price did some work on an engine codenamed
the L1000 starting in 1938 this used a reciprocating compressor
arrangement and was dropped in 1943.
...
Keith
Price attempted to match the specific fuel consumption of a piston
engine, which was necessary for the long range strategic bombers and
interceptors we would need if England fell. The B-29, -36 and P-38
were the piston versions.
Actually he used what he had and the result was intended to be used
in the Lockheed L-133 fighter. When the supriority of the gas turbine
was demonstrated in 1942 the design was changed.


Keith
Bay Man
2011-12-12 11:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
Wrong answer.
RIGHT answer.
Post by Daryl
The US took the Whittle/Goblin and made a better version called the J-33.
While the Brits at the time were developing a whole range of differing
engines. They would expect the US to look at them and understand them and
hopefully do some improvements.
Post by Daryl
And yes, that was during WWII. Ushering in the P-80C/t-33 that fly even
today around the globe. There was NO German influence in the P-80 outside
of the introduction of the 262 that hastened it's development.
It was designed around the British jet engines of which they never had one,
only drawings. Then the Brits delivered the engines when the frame was
built. The plane's body was outdated with the pilot between the wings, with
poor visibility, as per piston planes at the time - as was the 262. Unlike
the more advanced Meteor with its forward pilot position.
Post by Daryl
Meteor: March 5, 1943
ME262 April 22, 1943
P-80 8 June 1944
You fogot the Gloster Whittle of 1941, although a test plane only. The
Germans put their test planes into battle. The Brits never.

The near kamikaze ME 262, little more than a prototype, never operated
properly so does not count so much. If the Brits wanted to get a plane
operational fighting the enemy, hey couildhave weaily had a plane in the air
by 1942. It would have been not much better than the 262 though. So they
sensibly developed proper plane.
Post by Daryl
Now to throw your story out of the window.
Please try with your US sective anmesia and making things up.
Post by Daryl
Lockheed J-37, First flown in early 1934. Research stopped in 1936.
Making the J-37 the first of all of them.
Oh my God is this guy serious? It was a "steam" turbine, not a gas turbine
jet, fitted into a plane with a propeller. It was not powered by jet
thrust. The Italian motorjet effort was better than that. At least jet
thrust pushed it along.
Post by Daryl
The HE-178 (a research and test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine.
The J-37 was not a gas turbine jet thrust engine for sure - no better than
the steam turbines in ships - just smaller, using a compressor and adapted
to turn a prop. Do you know the difference?

The Henri Conada motorjet engine of 1911 was the first jet engine to be
powered by 100% jet thrust. It ran and never flew.

From wiki:

" In 1930 Nathan C. Price joined Doble Steam Motors, a manufacturer of steam
engines for cars and other uses. Over the next few years he worked on a
number of projects and starting in autumn 1933 began working on a steam
turbine for aircraft use. The engine featured a centrifugal compressor that
fed air to a combustion chamber, which in turn fed steam into a turbine
before exiting through a nozzle, powering the compressor and a propeller.
The engine was fitted to a test aircraft in early 1934, where it
demonstrated performance on par with existing piston engines but maintaining
power to higher altitudes due to the compressor. Work on the design ended in
1936 after Doble found little interest in the design from aircraft
manufacturers or the Army."
Post by Daryl
The J-37 did surface as the T-35. Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at least 5
years. No Brit or German influence.
I think you meant to write J-37 not J-35. Attempting to make out the USA was
first with a jet engine is pure fantasy. That was fun to read though.
LOL:LOL:LOL

Did you mean your post to be funny?
Daryl
2011-12-12 13:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
Wrong answer.
RIGHT answer.
Post by Daryl
The US took the Whittle/Goblin and made a better version called the J-33.
While the Brits at the time were developing a whole range of
differing engines. They would expect the US to look at them and
understand them and hopefully do some improvements.
Quite an improvement. 5000+ lb thrust versus 2000+ lbs thrust
made the P-80 single engine have more thrust than the 2 engined
Brit Planes.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Daryl
And yes, that was during WWII. Ushering in the P-80C/t-33 that
fly even today around the globe. There was NO German influence
in the P-80 outside of the introduction of the 262 that
hastened it's development.
It was designed around the British jet engines of which they
never had one, only drawings. Then the Brits delivered the
engines when the frame was built. The plane's body was outdated
with the pilot between the wings, with poor visibility, as per
piston planes at the time - as was the 262. Unlike the more
advanced Meteor with its forward pilot position.
More advanced? The Meteor was underpowered as compared to either
the 262 and the P-80.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Daryl
Meteor: March 5, 1943
ME262 April 22, 1943
P-80 8 June 1944
You fogot the Gloster Whittle of 1941, although a test plane
only. The Germans put their test planes into battle. The Brits
never.
The test plane for the Germans was the HE-178 and it was never
used in combat.
Post by Bay Man
The near kamikaze ME 262, little more than a prototype, never
operated properly so does not count so much. If the Brits wanted
to get a plane operational fighting the enemy, hey couildhave
weaily had a plane in the air by 1942. It would have been not
much better than the 262 though. So they sensibly developed
proper plane.
After the war ended, the Meteor came into it's own. The Brits
lacked the engine and, be damned, wouldn't use a US made jet
engine.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Daryl
Now to throw your story out of the window.
Please try with your US sective anmesia and making things up.
Post by Daryl
Lockheed J-37, First flown in early 1934. Research stopped in
1936.
Making the J-37 the first of all of them.
Oh my God is this guy serious? It was a "steam" turbine, not a
gas turbine jet, fitted into a plane with a propeller. It was not
powered by jet thrust. The Italian motorjet effort was better
than that. At least jet thrust pushed it along.
Post by Daryl
The HE-178 (a research and test AC) was first flown on 27
August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine.
The J-37 was not a gas turbine jet thrust engine for sure - no
better than the steam turbines in ships - just smaller, using a
compressor and adapted to turn a prop. Do you know the difference?
I spent 5 years working on Turboprops. How about you?
Post by Bay Man
The Henri Conada motorjet engine of 1911 was the first jet engine
to be powered by 100% jet thrust. It ran and never flew.
" In 1930 Nathan C. Price joined Doble Steam Motors, a
manufacturer of steam engines for cars and other uses. Over the
next few years he worked on a number of projects and starting in
autumn 1933 began working on a steam turbine for aircraft use.
The engine featured a centrifugal compressor that fed air to a
combustion chamber, which in turn fed steam into a turbine before
exiting through a nozzle, powering the compressor and a
propeller. The engine was fitted to a test aircraft in early
1934, where it demonstrated performance on par with existing
piston engines but maintaining power to higher altitudes due to
the compressor. Work on the design ended in 1936 after Doble
found little interest in the design from aircraft manufacturers
or the Army."
Post by Daryl
The J-37 did surface as the T-35. Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years. No Brit or German influence.
I think you meant to write J-37 not J-35. Attempting to make out
the USA was first with a jet engine is pure fantasy. That was fun
to read though. LOL:LOL:LOL
Did you mean your post to be funny?
Funny enough that the original J-57 was a T-57 before it became
the famed J-57. The J-47 was adapted from the T-37. The J-35
was adapted from the L-1000 which first ran as a steam turboprop.
Making the Steam Turbines from the US the Daddy of the modern
engines today. All were axial flow.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Bay Man
2011-12-12 15:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
Wrong answer.
RIGHT answer.
Post by Daryl
The US took the Whittle/Goblin and made a better version called the J-33.
While the Brits at the time were developing a whole range of
differing engines. They would expect the US to look at them and
understand them and hopefully do some improvements.
Quite an improvement. 5000+ lb thrust versus 2000+ lbs thrust made the
P-80 single engine have more thrust than the 2 engined Brit Planes.
You are on about 1946. Look at UK engines in 1946. The RR Nene was
delivering 5000lb and first ran in 1944. The RR Derwent was just under its
power. The US engines were just improved UK engines.

The Nene was not used by the Brits much. It was made under licaence by the
US as the P&W J42 and the Soviet Klimov RD-45. Many countries used the
engines in their own planes. The US & USSR used it far more than the Brits
who went over to the axial flow RR Avon, R&D in 1945, first run in 1946 with
5000lb of thrust and eventually reaching 12,700lb being made until 1974.
More advanced? The Meteor was underpowered as compared to either the 262
and the P-80.
The RAF never uprated the Meteor's RR Derwents to the RR Nene, as they were
satisfied with performance, economy and reliability, so kept them. They
wanted a quantum leap and as the Avon & Sapphire (dates from 1940) were
under development, there was no sense in uprating a plane with engines that
may be superseded in a matter of months.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Daryl
Meteor: March 5, 1943
ME262 April 22, 1943
P-80 8 June 1944
You fogot the Gloster Whittle of 1941, although a test plane
only. The Germans put their test planes into battle. The Brits
never.
The test plane for the Germans was the HE-178 and it was never used in
combat.
That project was abandoned. When they took up jets again they threw test
planes into battle as the 262 is clear to see.
Post by Bay Man
The near kamikaze ME 262, little more than a prototype, never
operated properly so does not count so much. If the Brits wanted
to get a plane operational fighting the enemy, they could have
easily had a plane in the air by 1942. It would have been not
much better than the 262 though. So they sensibly developed
proper plane.
After the war ended, the Meteor came into it's own. The Brits lacked the
engine and, be damned, wouldn't use a US made jet engine.
It came into its own during WW2, the F.3. Why would the Brits use one of
their own engines uprated by the US - a country that had no, to little,
experience of gas turbine jet engines. A country had needed a British engine
and drawings to get their programme going. The Brits all sorts of engines
being R&Dd and you are suggesting they adopt engines from green country on
jets? You do jest of course. But I do like to have fun.
Post by Bay Man
The J-37 was not a gas turbine jet thrust engine for sure - no
better than the steam turbines in ships - just smaller, using a
compressor and adapted to turn a prop. Do you know the difference?
I spent 5 years working on Turboprops. How about you?
Get your money back.
Post by Bay Man
Did you mean your post to be funny?
Funny enough that the original J-57 was a T-57 before it became the famed
J-57. The J-47 was adapted from the T-37. The J-35 was adapted from the
L-1000 which first ran as a steam turboprop. Making the Steam Turbines
from the US the Daddy of the modern engines today. All were axial flow.
What warped logic!
Gordon
2011-12-12 15:54:56 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 12, 7:12 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
You fogot the Gloster Whittle of 1941, although a test plane
only. The Germans put their test planes into battle. The Brits
never.
The test plane for the Germans was the HE-178 and it was never used in
combat.
That project was abandoned.  When they took up jets again they threw test
planes into battle as the 262 is clear to see.
You say that like its a bad thing. Their entire nightfighter effort
revolved around a testing facility that allowed the Jormans to flight
test new equipment and aircraft variants in combat at night with the
RAF. While you sneer at such an idea, its made sense from their
vantage point - why shoot at towed sleaves when there was a stream of
Wellingtons passing overhead?
Post by Bay Man
The near kamikaze ME 262, little more than a prototype, never
operated properly so does not count so much.
Almost 1500 completed, an entire fighter wing formed up and engaged in
fighting for almost ten months, two bomber wings, two recon gruppes,
countless other units all using production-run "prototypes", if that
word could be trimmed, sanded, and filed down to fit. Or, its the
first fully operational combat jet. I already know what you think.
Kamikaze implies pilot intent to kill himself attacking the enemy -
feel free to sand that down as well.
Gordon
2011-12-12 15:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Now to throw your story out of the window.
Lockheed J-37,  First flown in early 1934.  Research stopped in 1936.
Making the J-37 the first of all of them.  The HE-178 (a research
and test AC) was first flown on 27 August 1939.
Making the J-37 the first engine.  The J-37 did surface as the
T-35.  Then there was the T-37.
Making the J-35 the first of the successful jet engines by at
least 5 years.  No Brit or German influence.
What silliness is this? Do you have a cite other than Wikipedia..?
Gordon
2011-12-12 16:52:40 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 11, 5:36 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Your bias against the Me 262 and its engines
is noted.
Not biased - REALISTIC. I am not obsessed with one plane as you are .
Obsessions cloud reality.
Obsessed with a gorgeous wife and paintballing. The Me 262 vs
Mosquito is my passion. I far prefer the Mosquito, but I think they
were both remarkable game changers. I believe that to be REALISTIC.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
A realistic view is that it opened the
door to jets as functional weapons of war,
which opened the door to the use of jets in peace.
Total YANKEE tripe!!!
oww that hurt. What name should I call you? Since your mom was
German, I guess I could come up with something, but I typically don't
bother with personal insults during disagreements.
Post by Bay Man
 The Meteor was operational - in hunting the enemy, BEFORE the 262.
"fighter" by definition, hunts enemy aircraft. People who shoot down
drones do not get credit for shooting down airplanes, which are
manned. Check if you don't believe me - even the British did not
cound V-1 kills as E/A destroyed.
Post by Bay Man
The Meteor was used until the mid 1980s. The Meteor has
three versions during WW2 with the F.3 entering in Dec 44.  Where is this
wonder jet that is showing the way, that in reality was only fit for
attacking antiquated lumbering bombers in daylight?
10 NJG 11 with about 35 vics at night, or 60+ if you are obsessed with
the airplane and can't equate known losses with claims. No one
losses a war and gets to keep their aircraft in service, so that is a
moot point that you are fighting to make.
Post by Bay Man
Did this German wonder
plane inspire the Meteor, which actually came before it?
The Meatbox came before the Me 262 V-1...? NO SHIT??? Or are you
just plain wrong here?
Post by Bay Man
The 262 would have been little more than a curio like the rocket planes
which had the same short range anti-bomber interception function, and left
to niche military functions. The Meteor proved jet flight was feasible for
all applications - not just attacking slow bombers in daylight. During WW2
the Brits were designing jet bombers and jet civilian airliners, which
materialised after WW2, with the airliner first as war needs slowed up until
Korea and the Cold War.
The plane that proved jets were here and created a massive jet business was
the Meteor. It ticked all the boxes, while the half developed crock, the
262, fell way short.
You are seeing what you want to see. I have researched this plane and it
does not stand up in any way as a milestone plane that influenced all
others.  Even the Ruskies who never had jets in WW2, apart from a flyable
R&D motorjet, wouldn't fly them after WW2, despite having lots of these
so-called advanced airframes. They gave a few to the Czechs, now with
reliable engines, who dropped this wonder plane after a year.
That is some pretty impressive research ya got there. The Ruskies
wouldn't fly them because Stalin didn't want his VVS using anything
German., or even "German looking" (the Russians actually built a
nearly identical copy of the Me 262, which Stalin canceled for that
reason). They "gave a few to the Czechs" (no, the Czechs built their
own from stocks on hand) "now with reliable engines" (no, the Jumos
they had in stock).

The design was advanced, the examples we captured after the war were
built by 1) slave labor, 2) in bombed factories, or 3) in forest
assembly plants. No aircraft built in this manner is going to be
perfect, but it was still faster and more heavily armed than anything
we had. Walter Schuck knocked down three B-17s and caused the loss of
a fourth with a single salvo of rockets. Two minutes later, he shot
down a P-51 with his cannons. Verified. Fact.

And then his engine blew up!

Coz it was crap?

No, because it was having trouble working with a hail of .50 bullets
smashing the compressor, staters, and whatnot.
Post by Bay Man
Each time I look and read some of the crap about this crock of a plane I
could vomit.
That's how I feel looking at yer posts so we have a bit in common
here.
Post by Bay Man
No one after WW2 copied anything from that plane. The USSR
copied the engine and improved on them because they had no real research on
jets, so that is all they knew, and until the Brits gave them a Rolls-Royce
Nene jet engine were limited. The Rolls-Royce Nene, with nearly 5,000lbs of
thrust, was double the power of any German engine which the Soviets were
basically using, as well as having other advantages lkike not drinking fuel
like crazy. The Soviets used their own airframe designs and had the first
swept wing jet plane as well.
Riiiight. Because the Me 262's wings aren't actually "swept", nor are
those on the Ju 287 monstrosity. More... umm.. research..?

The Me 262 team experimented with both 35 and 45 degree sweeps LONG
before the Soviets, leading to the German prototype that became the
Bell X-5.
Post by Bay Man
The Yanks are embarrassed that the Brits gave them jet engines, as no
research was under way in the US, and assisted in designing their early
planes. So they point to the Germans as the innovators we all have supposed
to have copied. The US never had any research going on and the Brits gave
them the engines.  No need to feel embarrassed about it.  We were on the
same side.
Not sure what side that might be, since in an earlier post you claimed
your mother was bombed in Germany for years, or was that someone
else?

"Our side" directly benefitted from German aeronautical research in
many ways - that is what happens in the wake of a war, where you
occupy and take entire facilities back to your country. The Revolver
Cannon, swept wings, AAMs, any other things went from German R&D
directly into Allied R&D. The 262 was a five year old design in 1945
- not many 1941 designs were still flying in combat after the war.
The reason no one flew them after the war is obvious, with the
pressures of war released, things could progress more slowly, safely,
and thoughtfully. Allied design teams were making progress, just as
the Germans were, and the 262 was a WWII-era jet fighter. The Meatbox
wouldn't last 20 seconds against a 1970s era jet fighter - in fact, no
WWII era jet would. They continued into the modern era just as the
P-80/T-33 and derivatives did - by being retained long into the
afternoon as a research platform and training aircraft, without a
combat role.
Post by Bay Man
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
And you are insulting instead of proving your points.
Bay Man
2011-12-12 18:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
The Meteor was operational - in hunting the enemy, BEFORE the 262.
"fighter" by definition, hunts enemy aircraft.
It does not, it hunts or defends against the "enemy"., no matter where or
what the enemy is. V1 rockets were not full of Christmas presents.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
You are seeing what you want to see. I have researched this plane and it
does not stand up in any way as a milestone plane that influenced all
others. Even the Ruskies who never had jets in WW2, apart from a flyable
R&D motorjet, wouldn't fly them after WW2, despite having lots of these
so-called advanced airframes. They gave a few to the Czechs, now with
reliable engines, who dropped this wonder plane after a year.
That is some pretty impressive research ya got there. The Ruskies
wouldn't fly them because Stalin didn't want his VVS using anything
German., or even "German looking" (the Russians actually built a
nearly identical copy of the Me 262, which Stalin canceled for that
reason).
It never looked like it. Although the pilot was in the same place as the
262. It read up one Soviet plane designer convince Stalin it looked like the
262, so he chose his plane. The Soviets quickly adopted the attributes of
the Meteor with the front mounted pilot but put in highly swept wings - the
MIG 15. But only when getting UK engines, the Nene.

The frames and enmgines were given to the Czechs by the Soviets. They only
kept them a year and gave up.
Post by Gordon
The design was advanced,
It wasn't. The frame dates from 1938. The engines were poor
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
Each time I look and read some of the
crap about this crock of a plane I
could vomit.
That's how I feel looking at yer posts
so we have a bit in common here.
All you have gone on, is emotion.
Post by Gordon
No one after WW2 copied anything from that plane. The USSR
copied the engine and improved on them because they had no real research on
jets, so that is all they knew, and until the Brits gave them a Rolls-Royce
Nene jet engine were limited. The Rolls-Royce Nene, with nearly 5,000lbs of
thrust, was double the power of any German engine which the Soviets were
basically using, as well as having other advantages lkike not drinking fuel
like crazy. The Soviets used their own airframe designs and had the first
swept wing jet plane as well.
The Me 262's wings are slightly "swept".
Post by Gordon
The Me 262 team experimented with both 35
and 45 degree sweeps LONG
before the Soviets, leading to the German prototype
that became the Bell X-5.
The first to design and fly a swept wing plane was an English-Irish guy
named Dunne. The Bell X-5 was swing-wing in flight, but they never got it
right being a prototype. The German plane had adjustable wings on the ground
for experimental purposes only, so nothing special. Barnes-Wallis did R&D in
the UK got it right just after WW2 and the F-111 was based on his work which
was intended for a 1950s UK plane which HMG cancelled. Barnes-Wallis' work
was handed over to the USA.
Post by Gordon
you claimed your mother was bombed in Germany for years
No bombed by German bombers. Bastards!
Post by Gordon
"Our side" directly benefitted from German
aeronautical research in many ways - that
is what happens in the wake of a war,
The only German research I can think of that the UK copied was the
convoluted wings on the Victor bomber. They only did it once. Jet engines?
Swept wings? They could not tell the Brits anything on those points.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
All you are doing is perpetuating a childish myth.
And you are insulting instead of proving your points.
You have not proven anything that points to the 262 being a ground breaking
plane that was the basis for all others after. You haven't and it wasn't.
All facts point to that is was a poor desperate effort bordering on a
kamikaze plane. I saw no kamikaze jets after WW2 by the UK, US, USSR or
anyone.

BTW. the top profile of the Canberra bomber (also made by Martin) is near
identical to the Meteor. The Canberra flew until recently and I think is
still flying in some air forces. It flew so high in the 1950s the Soviets
could not catch it by plane or missile. US crews also secretly flew RAF
planes.
Eunometic
2011-12-11 17:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
Trouble is the Jumo was good for 25 hours in service at best
MTBO was 25 hours, total life about 100 (based on consumable spare
parts orders)
Its likely MTBO would have risen to a higher level as new features
came in that
increased service life, a new fuel control system, better
manufacturing etc.

Some engines flown by experienced pilots achieved 50-60 hours without
failure.

85 hours was the next target for BMW.

That is plenty.
Gordon
2011-12-11 22:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunometic
Post by Keith W
Trouble is the Jumo was good for 25 hours in service at best
MTBO was 25 hours, total life about 100 (based on consumable spare
parts orders)
Its likely MTBO would have risen to a higher level as new features
came in that
increased service life, a new fuel control system, better
manufacturing etc.
Some engines flown by experienced pilots achieved 50-60 hours without
failure.
85 hours was the next target for BMW.
That is plenty.
I'm waiting for him to explain why the engines on the early P-80s
turned them into 'kamikazes'.
Daryl
2011-12-11 22:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Eunometic
Post by Keith W
Trouble is the Jumo was good for 25 hours in service at best
MTBO was 25 hours, total life about 100 (based on consumable spare
parts orders)
Its likely MTBO would have risen to a higher level as new features
came in that
increased service life, a new fuel control system, better
manufacturing etc.
Some engines flown by experienced pilots achieved 50-60 hours without
failure.
85 hours was the next target for BMW.
There were many that made it past the 25 hour mark. I don't
remember which 262 pilot consistently accomplished this but this
was done by pampering the engine.
Post by Gordon
Post by Eunometic
That is plenty.
I'm waiting for him to explain why the engines on the early P-80s
turned them into 'kamikazes'.
For the same basic reason that the 262 had to be pampered. The
Fuel control. Forgetting to put the pumps online manually. Not
the basic engine's design flaw but the fuel control flaw that was
corrected when they switched from the Whittles to the J-33.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Bay Man
2011-12-11 10:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunometic
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with the early jets was the unavailability of
high-temperature alloys. The reason the Jumo was so bad is that it used
regular steel and had poor fuel control.
The Nene had a centrifugal flow compressor, as did the Whittle and the
J-33 used in the T-33/F-80s. Centrifugal flow compressors have a limit
of about 6.5:1 compression ratio, while axial flow compressors can
achieve much higher compression.
Jet engine advances have depended very much on metallurgy, in which the
US has led the world for the last 60 years.
The axial vs radial argument is fairly hackneyed.
That is so. Saying the Juno was axial flow, as if it was the first and no
one knew of axial flow, so it was the engine that made the jet age is
utterly silly. The engine that made the jet age was the Whittle W1. It
worked all of the time. It proved the jet could be moved over to civilian
uses.
Bay Man
2011-12-11 11:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Eunometic
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with the early jets was the unavailability of
high-temperature alloys. The reason the Jumo was so bad is that it used
regular steel and had poor fuel control.
The Nene had a centrifugal flow compressor, as did the Whittle and the
J-33 used in the T-33/F-80s. Centrifugal flow compressors have a limit
of about 6.5:1 compression ratio, while axial flow compressors can
achieve much higher compression.
Jet engine advances have depended very much on metallurgy, in which the
US has led the world for the last 60 years.
The axial vs radial argument is fairly hackneyed.
That is so. Saying the Juno was axial flow, as if it was the first and no
one knew of axial flow, so it was the engine that made the jet age is
utterly silly. The engine that made the jet age was the Whittle W1. It
worked all of the time. It proved the jet could be moved over to civilian
uses.
There is a myth that is sustained, mainly in the USA, that the Germans
invented the jet engine and that the 262 was plane that made the jet age.
They have even made flying copies of this glorified kamikaze plane in the
USA, of course, now with real engines, elevating it to a position it does
not merit.

A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor' of the
jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole inventor. This is not
correct. Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's son, Ian, dispel this myth.

You only have to read the responses on these forums, from primarily
Americans, to see how this myth has morphed into truth in the USA.
Gordon
2011-12-11 22:02:02 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 11, 3:15 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Bay Man
Post by Eunometic
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with the early jets was the unavailability of
high-temperature alloys. The reason the Jumo was so bad is that it used
regular steel and had poor fuel control.
The Nene had a centrifugal flow compressor, as did the Whittle and the
J-33 used in the T-33/F-80s. Centrifugal flow compressors have a limit
of about 6.5:1 compression ratio, while axial flow compressors can
achieve much higher compression.
Jet engine advances have depended very much on metallurgy, in which the
US has led the world for the last 60 years.
The axial vs radial argument is fairly hackneyed.
That is so. Saying the Juno was axial flow, as if it was the first and no
one knew of axial flow, so it was the engine that made the jet age is
utterly silly. The engine that made the jet age was the Whittle W1. It
worked all of the time. It proved the jet could be moved over to civilian
uses.
There is a myth that is sustained, mainly in the USA, that the Germans
invented the jet engine and that the 262 was plane that made the jet age.
They have even made flying copies of this glorified kamikaze plane in the
USA, of course, now with real engines, elevating it to a position it does
not merit.
A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor' of the
jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole inventor. This is not
correct.  Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's son, Ian, dispel this myth.
So a number of sources are all wrong, that wouldn't be the first
time. Do a bunch of sources say 'flying in an Me 262 is like being in
a Kamikaze', or is that just your take on it?

Hot starts were common, but as far as I can see they led to very few
fires that damaged the aircraft. Fires in flight were usually not
caused by engine failures. Of course, I am just an American so I
can't possible be expected to translate all these reports correctly.
Post by Bay Man
You only have to read the responses on these forums, from primarily
Americans, to see how this myth has morphed into truth in the USA.
You can't expect us silly colonists to get anything right.
Jim Wilkins
2011-12-11 22:59:50 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon" <***@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
news:19583386-d1a1-45df-b615->
...>
Post by Bay Man
There is a myth that is sustained, mainly in the USA, that the Germans
invented the jet engine and that the 262 was plane that made the jet age.
They have even made flying copies of this glorified kamikaze plane in the
USA, of course, now with real engines, elevating it to a position it does
not merit.
A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor' of the
jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole inventor. This is not
correct. Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's son, Ian, dispel this myth.
-So a number of sources are all wrong, that wouldn't be the first
-time. Do a bunch of sources say 'flying in an Me 262 is like being in
-a Kamikaze', or is that just your take on it?

-Hot starts were common, but as far as I can see they led to very few
-fires that damaged the aircraft. Fires in flight were usually not
-caused by engine failures. Of course, I am just an American so I
-can't possible be expected to translate all these reports correctly.

Whittle and von Ohain succeeded in making an old idea work. The concept has
been around since ~1800 in the impractical ideas and experiments of Oliver
Evans (USA) and John Barber:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barber_(engineer)
The very successful Parsons steam turbine stimulated attempts to omit the
intermediate steam boiler and operate the turbine directly from the
combustion gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine

Franz Stolze (Ger) built an unsuccessful axial compressor gas turbine in
1904, Armengaud Lemale (Fra) a centrifugal one in 1906.

jsw
Bay Man
2011-12-12 01:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
news:19583386-d1a1-45df-b615->
...>
Post by Bay Man
There is a myth that is sustained, mainly in the USA, that the Germans
invented the jet engine and that the 262 was plane that made the jet age.
They have even made flying copies of this glorified kamikaze plane in the
USA, of course, now with real engines, elevating it to a position it does
not merit.
A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor' of the
jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole inventor. This is not
correct. Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's son, Ian, dispel this myth.
-So a number of sources are all wrong, that wouldn't be the first
-time.
The turbine was not new as ship turbines dated from the late 1800s. There
are many differnt types of turbines. Whittle got the first gas turbine jet
operational in: reliability, economy, performance and longevity. The
companies that made the first Whittle engines were turbine companies.
Keith W
2011-12-11 23:29:25 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 11, 3:15 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor'
of the jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole
inventor. This is not correct. Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's
son, Ian, dispel this myth.
So a number of sources are all wrong, that wouldn't be the first
time. Do a bunch of sources say 'flying in an Me 262 is like being in
a Kamikaze', or is that just your take on it?
Eric Brown stated quite clearly that the Me-262 was a magnificent
fighter and represented a quantum leap in performance. Given that
he not only flew the contemporary British and American jet
fighters but also made the first jet landings and takeoff from a
carrier I am inclined to accept his opinion.

Keith
Bay Man
2011-12-12 00:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
On Dec 11, 3:15 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor'
of the jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole
inventor. This is not correct. Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's
son, Ian, dispel this myth.
So a number of sources are all wrong,
They are wrong. You are right.
Post by Keith W
that wouldn't be the first
time. Do a bunch of sources say 'flying in an Me 262 is like being in a
Kamikaze', or is that just your take on it?
This plane killed more German than allied airmen. The chances of coming back
from a mission was les than 50%. The UK & US would never dream of putting
into the air such a crude undeveloped plane - a death-trap. Yet the German
sent men knowing they had a slim chance of returning. Approaching Zamikaze
odds. Well The Jap couldn't come back as the wheels locked up.
Post by Keith W
Eric Brown stated quite clearly that the Me-262 was a magnificent
fighter and represented a quantum leap in performance.
If the engine didn't burn out or stall, which was easy to do. The 262 was
not a fighter. It was a bomber interceptor. It was not agile and Mustangs
could could out-fox it. In a dog fight the engines would stall and other
planes would turn on it and get it. All providing the engines never burnt
out or stalled of course. In Meteor-262 dog fight the agile Meteor would
trounce the 262.
Post by Keith W
Given that
he not only flew the contemporary British and American jet
fighters but also made the first jet landings and takeoff from a
carrier I am inclined to accept his opinion.
Others disagree with him. In fact all aspects of its performance counters
him.
Gordon
2011-12-12 16:14:54 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 11, 4:31 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Keith W
On Dec 11, 3:15 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle as the 'co-inventor'
of the jet engine (with Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole
inventor. This is not correct. Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's
son, Ian, dispel this myth.
So a number of sources are all wrong,
They are wrong. You are right.
your words, buddy. if you don't like them, wash them down with milk.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Keith W
that wouldn't be the first
time.  Do a bunch of sources say 'flying in an Me 262 is like being in a
Kamikaze', or is that just your take on it?
This plane killed more German than allied airmen. The chances of coming back
from a mission was les than 50%.
That sounds like something you read - would you mind telling me where
you saw that figure?
Post by Bay Man
The UK & US would never dream of putting
into the air such a crude undeveloped plane - a death-trap.
What if they were subjected to around-the-clock bombing? They were in
far different circumstances than we were, so they made different
(usually crappy) decisions. If you can't get Coke, you invent Fanta.
That's how it works.
Post by Bay Man
Yet the German
sent men knowing they had a slim chance of returning.
Do you think those guys had a better chance in a 109...? Shit, they
were still flying Stukas in 1945, and you want to try and make is seem
like they were suicidal for flying into combat in something with an 80
mph speed advantage and more firepower than any Allied fighter of the
war?

I know you are convinced and all, but I spent my life interviewing
pilots...; everyone's pilots. Off the top of my head, probably 20+
Me 262 pilots. Never heard of one of them speak of it with anything
other than awe, appreciation, and a radiance that fighter pilots get
when they know they were in the best plane of their age. They all
have the same spark as SR-71 pilots, Eagle drivers, etc. You know
not of what you speak, in this regard.
Post by Bay Man
Approaching Zamikaze
odds. Well The Jap couldn't come back as the wheels locked up.
So how many Kamikaze pilots have 20-40 "kamikaze" flights in their
logbooks? Or lets think about Baer, with over 200 "kamikaze"
flights. It was a _great plane_, if you can take General Eaker's
opinion of it. Or the opinion 95% of the men that flew against it.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Keith W
Eric Brown stated quite clearly that the Me-262 was a magnificent
fighter and represented a quantum leap in performance.
If the engine didn't burn out or stall, which was easy to do. The 262 was
not a fighter. It was a bomber interceptor. It was not agile and Mustangs
could could out-fox it. In a dog fight the engines would stall and other
planes would turn on it and get it.  All providing the engines never burnt
out or stalled of course.  In Meteor-262 dog fight the agile Meteor would
trounce the 262.
Did not happen. People who flew both, starting of course with the
legendary Good Captain do not agree with your assessment. I have
truly enjoyed my interactions and interviews with Captain Brown, and
if you disagree with him, you do so from a position of ignorance.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Keith W
Given that
he not only flew the contemporary British and American jet
fighters but also made the first jet landings and takeoff from a
carrier I am inclined to accept his opinion.
Others disagree with him. In fact all aspects of its performance counters
him.
This reminds me of the guys that come to our museum and try to tell
Buzz Aldrin that he didn't land on the moon. When you fly both of
these First Generation jet fighters, please post your results, and we
can compare your logbook and your opinion with his. His pages-long
assessment of the Me 262 is exactly what I would want, from a guy that
tested so many flying things. He is an amazing test pilot and a
wonderful writer. Others can disagree with him, but again, he was in
a position to evaluate these things personally, and I have always
found his views intelligent and thoughtful.
Bay Man
2011-12-12 17:44:34 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon" <***@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message news:007451a0-7584-4e1e-ad33-***@n7g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

What you are attempting to do it make out this 262 plane was some wonder
plane. It was not. It was far from it. Get that clear.

The Germans could not compete with allied aircraft production so "gambled".
They were great gamblers, winning in France and failing in the USSR. Their
gamble was to use high tech hoping it would give them a massive edge. It all
failed. The V rockets were an expensive disaster only hitting a city if that
making no impact on the course of gthe war. As was the wonder-sub, the mk
iiXX U-Boats - two mde and none sailed in anger. The jets were supposed to
stop the endless waves of allied bombers. The R&D money and time would have
been better used to build FW-190s, a proven good bomber interceptor, which
coud lock horns with Allied fighters after, rather than hope. They were
gambling on hope.

As I have outlined in other posts the 262 was not a ground breaking jet
plane. That clearly goes to the Meteor, especially the F.3. The body was of
a piston plane with the pilot half way down the body between the wings. The
engine was an unreliable disaster to what the Brits were producing and had
in R&D and also the US in improving the W1.

To have put that plane into service was of the kamikaze mentality.

The performance of the plane was questionable, as the 262 could have been
shot down by fast Tempests and Mustangs which could easily turn in on the
262 and get it, as could have the Meteor if they ever met. The fuel
consumption meant it had a very short time in the air and hence range.

If this plane was so wonderful as myth makes out, maonly US myth, why wasn't
the engine and frame copied by those more advanced in engines like the UK &
US? The engine was adopted by the USSR as they had no choice having no R&D
on gas turbine jets, but they rejected the body of the 262 in their
immediate post war jets. The only part of this so-called wonder
ground-breaking plane that was used by anyone after WW2 was the engines
because the USSR had no choice but to use it, although they did rectify many
faults on it. The Soviets offloaded some on Czechoslovakia who only ran them
for a year.

Nothing points to the 262 being a ground breaking plane that set the trend
for all others after. Nothing whatsoever.

Captain Brown, is pretty well much alone in his views on the plane. German
pilots? forget them. Pilots do view planes differently to those who
administer squadrons and air forces.

I do believe initially you thought this plane was special, and went down the
research route (book coming up?) and have convinced yourself that black is
white.

BTW, Adam Tooze wrote a wonderful book on WW2 and how the economics affected
the war. He dismissed the 262 - as the only thing which differentiated the
plane from others was the engines and they failed to get that right. Its
impact on WW2? ZERO. The same impact as the rocket planes.

Look at the big picture
Gordon
2011-12-12 19:08:28 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 12, 9:44 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
What you are attempting to do it make out this 262 plane was some wonder
plane. It was not.  It was far from it.  Get that clear.
Where did I say that? You are making it out to be a 100% clunker and
I am disagreeing, which you take to mean I 100% love the plane. It
was remarkable, it was a game-changer.. Get THAT clear. I'm not
your student and you haven't convinced anybody with your 'research'.
Post by Bay Man
The Germans could not compete with allied aircraft production so "gambled".
wow, ya got that one right.
Post by Bay Man
They were great gamblers, winning in France and failing in the USSR. Their
gamble was to use high tech hoping it would give them a massive edge. It all
failed. The V rockets were an expensive disaster only hitting a city if that
making no impact on the course of gthe war.  As was the wonder-sub, the mk
iiXX U-Boats - two mde and none sailed in anger.
I've never heard of that sub. Neither has Wikipedia. Do you mean the
Walther boats? Typ XXI and XXIII?
Post by Bay Man
The jets were supposed to
stop the endless waves of allied bombers. The R&D money and time would have
been better used to build FW-190s, a proven good bomber interceptor, which
coud lock horns with Allied fighters after, rather than hope. They were
gambling on hope.
All the FW 190s in the world wouldn't have saved it from the eventual
P-80/B-36 flood, so perhaps they needed to build both jets and FW
190s, since two of its largest enemies were building bombers AND jets.
Post by Bay Man
As I have outlined in other posts the 262 was not a ground breaking jet
plane.
Thanks for your opinion. If this was a dissertation, you'd be sent
back for a couple more years.
Post by Bay Man
That clearly goes to the Meteor, especially the F.3. The body was of
a piston plane with the pilot half way down the body between the wings. The
engine was an unreliable disaster to what the Brits were producing and had
in R&D and also the US in improving the W1.
To have put that plane into service was of the kamikaze mentality.
You have no idea what you are talking about. In 1944, the Germans
were able to assemble a Fighter Wing that took a new type of aircraft
into combat. In nearly every case, early use of new technology has
its pitfalls, so there is no surprise that it was not a slam dunk to
switch from piston engined to jet propelled fighters, requiring all
new tactics, ground control, etc.. That doesn't make the 8-262 a
shitty aircraft, it means it was developed under the worst possible
conditions and still made it through development and into combat. To
you, that's Kamikaze, but the rest of the world sees it as expediency.
Post by Bay Man
The performance of the plane was questionable, as the 262 could have been
shot down by fast Tempests and Mustangs which could easily turn in on the
262 and get it, as could have the Meteor if they ever met.
Any aircraft you name could be shot down in the landing pattern by a
P-26. Again, that doesn't make them all bad planes. If the 262 pilot
flew it at speed and stuck with the tactics they were given, no allied
plane could engage it and shoot it down. If the pilot chooses to fly
it like a 109, then it will get shot down. That was not the fault of
the Me 262, that was poor pilotage.
Post by Bay Man
The fuel
consumption meant it had a very short time in the air and hence range.
Meteor, they had the same range. Made a real point there.
Post by Bay Man
If this plane was so wonderful as myth makes out, maonly US myth, why wasn't
the engine and frame copied by those more advanced in engines like the UK &
US?
Who else used the Meteor's floorplan? If I wanted to see something
modern flying that matches the 262, all I have to do is squint at a
passing 737 - same layout, same wing sweep, engine location, etc. Our
museum floor is filled with jet engines, including quite a few that
look surprisingly like the Jumo we have. As for the tin can jet
engines, we have a couple of those as well, but they all date to the
1940s-1950s.
Post by Bay Man
 The engine was adopted by the USSR as they had no choice having no R&D
on gas turbine jets, but they rejected the body of the 262 in their
immediate post war jets.
No, they didn't. The first thing they did was build copies of the Me
262 (original Su-9, not the later 1960s design). That was their
"immediate post war jet" and it looking like a child built their first
model of an Me 262. Stalin cancelled it due to it "Looking too
German", as its performance was at least passable for a first
generation jet.
Post by Bay Man
The only part of this so-called wonder
ground-breaking plane that was used by anyone after WW2 was the engines
because the USSR had no choice but to use it, although they did rectify many
faults on it.
You said earlier that no one used any of it.
Post by Bay Man
The Soviets offloaded some on Czechoslovakia who only ran them
for a year.
Did not happen. Czechoslovakia was an assembly point for the Me 262
and there were hundreds of partially complete airframes and rail yards
full of spare parts already sitting IN Czechoslovakia when the war
ended. The Soviets had not one thing to do with the Czechs getting
the S-92 and CS-92.
Post by Bay Man
Nothing points to the 262 being a ground breaking plane that set the trend
for all others after. Nothing whatsoever.
I don't see anyone here saying that it 'set the trend for all others
after' - it was an important milestone along the way.
Post by Bay Man
Captain Brown, is pretty well much alone in his views on the plane. German
pilots? forget them. Pilots do view planes differently to those who
administer squadrons and air forces.
My, you ARE full of yourself, aren't you?
Post by Bay Man
I do believe initially you thought this plane was special, and went down the
research route (book coming up?) and have convinced yourself that black is
white.
I think you are really impressed with your own deductive powers.

You seem to feel that if YOU research something, you calmly and
cleverly master the subject, but if someone else does the same, they
are 'obsessed'. The book is about the utter failure of the GAF to
stop incursions by Mosquitos, using Me 262s among other things. It is
no paean to the German jet, it is an evaluation of their failure. But
keep inventing stuff - its fun to read.
Post by Bay Man
BTW, Adam Tooze wrote a wonderful book on WW2 and how the economics affected
the war. He dismissed the 262 - as the only thing which differentiated the
plane from others was the engines and they failed to get that right. Its
impact on WW2? ZERO.  The same impact as the rocket planes.
So I should take "Adam Tooze's" opinion of the Me 262 over Captain
Brown's? In a word, no.
Post by Bay Man
Look at the big picture
I'm sitting in the shade of your ego - can't see the big picture.
Bay Man
2011-12-12 21:09:53 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon" <***@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message news:b7946216-97e1-4d8d-be78-***@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 12, 9:44 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
What you are attempting to do it make
out this 262 plane was some wonder
plane. It was not. It was far from it. Get that clear.
Where did I say that?
Everything you write about it.
Post by Gordon
You are making it out to be a 100% clunker and
I am disagreeing, which you take to mean I 100%
love the plane. It was remarkable, it was a game-changer..
Get THAT clear.
That is as clear as mud. It was not remarkable. Two jet came out at the
same time one was the plane that all others would be based, especially the
engine as it proved jets for many applications were feasible. The other,
your wonder plane, had a very poor engine and a 6 year old airframe. The
262 changed no game at all. It just about played in the game and was injured
a lot of the time.
Post by Gordon
I've never heard of that sub. Neither
has Wikipedia. Do you mean the
Walther boats? Typ XXI and XXIII?
Typo. Mk XXI
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
The jets were supposed to
stop the endless waves of allied bombers.
The R&D money and time would have
been better used to build FW-190s, a
proven good bomber interceptor, which
could lock horns with Allied fighters after,
rather than hope. They were
gambling on hope.
All the FW 190s in the world wouldn't
have saved it from the eventual
P-80/B-36 flood, so perhaps they needed
to build both jets and FW
190s, since two of its largest enemies
were building bombers AND jets.
The US and Soviet jet programmes were in responnse to reports the Germans
were developing a jet. The Brits were already building one.

As Tooze points out. The tech programmes were a result of failure. It was
Spper who pushing the gambking in tech programems, which all failed.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
As I have outlined in other posts the
262 was not a ground breaking jet
plane.
Thanks for your opinion.
I do analysis, which is based on fact.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
That clearly goes to the Meteor, especially the F.3. The body was of
a piston plane with the pilot half way down the body between the wings. The
engine was an unreliable disaster to what the Brits were producing and had
in R&D and also the US in improving the W1.
To have put that plane into service was of the kamikaze mentality.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Read it again and move your lips if you like.
Post by Gordon
That doesn't make the 8-262 a
shitty aircraft, it means it was developed under
the worst possible conditions and still made it
through development and into combat.
It was still shitty. It never made it through development being rushed out
in haste. Tat is kamikaze.
Post by Gordon
If the 262 pilot flew it at speed and stuck
with the tactics they were given, no allied
plane could engage it and shoot it down.
The engines drank fuel and the tank was not that big. They could not sustain
high speed for long otherwise it would run of fuel. It had to slow down and
the fast piston planes could then get it.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
The fuel
consumption meant it had a very short time
in the air and hence range.
Meteor, they had the same range. Made a real point there.
You said you did research on this plane?

Ceiling-
* Meteor MK III: 44,000 ft
* 262A-1a : 37,565 ft

Range-
* Meteor F.3: 1340 mi
* 262A-1a : 652 mi
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
If this plane was so wonderful as myth makes out, mainly US myth, why
wasn't
the engine and frame copied by those more advanced in engines like the UK &
US?
Who else used the Meteor's floorplan?
The Canberra. many points of the Metor were adopted as standard, the forward
cocpit beingb the obvious.
Post by Gordon
If I wanted to see something
modern flying that matches the 262,
all I have to do is squint at a
passing 737 - same layout, same
wing sweep, engine location, etc.
Pilot position? Piston engine frame?
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
The engine was adopted by the USSR as they had no choice having no R&D
on gas turbine jets, but they rejected the body of the 262 in their
immediate post war jets.
No, they didn't. The first thing they did was build copies of the Me
262 (original Su-9, not the later 1960s design).
They never. Look again.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
The Soviets offloaded some on Czechoslovakia who only ran them
for a year.
Did not happen. Czechoslovakia was an assembly point for the Me 262
and there were hundreds of partially complete airframes and rail yards
full of spare parts already sitting IN Czechoslovakia when the war
ended. The Soviets had not one thing to do with the Czechs getting
the S-92 and CS-92.
Being a satellite state they Soviets would have big say in what the Czechs
did.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
Nothing points to the 262 being a ground breaking plane that set the trend
for all others after. Nothing whatsoever.
I don't see anyone here saying that it
'set the trend for all others after' - it
was an important milestone along the way.
Its only historical note is that is was the second plane in active enemy
action. Nothing else.
Post by Gordon
I think you are really impressed with your own deductive powers.
I am very good at objective analysis having done systems analysis.
Post by Gordon
The book is about the utter failure of the GAF to
stop incursions by Mosquitos, using Me 262s among other things. It is
no paean to the German jet, it is an evaluation of their failure. But
keep inventing stuff - its fun to read.
Sounds sensible. When US troops took the factory, the found that Ernst
Heinkel a picture of the Mosquito on the wall of his office. They asked him
why. He said that was the plane he would have liked to have built. Not the
jets.
Post by Gordon
So I should take "Adam Tooze's" opinion of the Me 262 over Captain
Brown's?
Yes.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
Look at the big picture
I'm sitting in the shade of your ego - can't see the big picture.
Please try.
Gordon
2011-12-12 22:39:37 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 12, 1:09 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
What you are attempting to do it make
out this 262 plane was some wonder
plane. It was not. It was far from it. Get that clear.
Where did I say that?
Everything you write about it.
That was illuminating.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
As I have outlined in other posts the
262 was not a ground breaking jet
 plane.
Thanks for your opinion.
I do analysis, which is based on fact.
...where you throw out anything that you disagree with - yeah, I got
that already.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
 To have put that plane into service was of the kamikaze mentality.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Read it again and move your lips if you like.
charming. You have yet to give a cite that flying a 262 was anything
close akin to a Kamikaze, i.e., an intentional, one-way attack
predetermined to cost the life of the pilot. My analysis of your
opinion is that you seem to have found a favorite book and cling to it
like an old lady in church.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
That doesn't make the 8-262 a
shitty aircraft, it means it was developed under
the worst possible conditions and still made it
through development and into combat.
It was still shitty. It never made it through development being rushed out
in haste.  Tat is kamikaze.
could you take a minute and look up "kamikaze" in the dictionary?
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
If the 262 pilot flew it at speed and stuck
with the tactics they were given, no allied
plane could engage it and shoot it down.
The engines drank fuel and the tank was not that big. They could not sustain
high speed for long otherwise it would run of fuel. It had to slow down and
the fast piston planes could then get it.
that statement is true of any first-generation jet, operating under
enemy air superiority.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
The fuel
consumption meant it had a very short time
in the air and hence range.
Meteor, they had the same range.   Made a real point there.
You said you did research on this plane?
Ceiling-
* Meteor MK III: 44,000 ft
* 262A-1a : 37,565 ft
a Meatbox MK I and an Me 262 have the same endurance on internal
fuel.

Statistics (most with Derwent IV engines)
Engine: Two Derwent I or Derwent IV engines
Thrust: 2,000lb (Derwent I) or 2,400lb (Derwent IV)
Span: 43ft
Length: 41.4ft
Gross Weight: 13,342lb
Maximum level speed at sea level: 486mph
Maximum level speed at 30,000ft: 493mph
Rate of climb at sea level: 3,980ft/ min
Ceiling: 46,000ft
Cruise Range at normal load: 504 miles <-------------
Armament: Four 20mm cannon in nose and two 1,000lb bombs or sixteen
90lb rocket projectiles under the wings
Post by Bay Man
Range-
* Meteor F.3: 1340 mi <---- what about the Mk I? About 600 miles.
* 262A-1a : 652 mi
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
The engine was adopted by the USSR as they had no choice having no R&D
on gas turbine jets, but they rejected the body of the 262 in their
immediate post war jets.
No, they didn't.  The first thing they did was build copies of the Me
262 (original Su-9, not the later 1960s design).
They never. Look again.
Dude, yer killing me. Look at the 1946 Su-9 and tell me what you
see.

Go to Google.com, type in Suhkoi Su-9 and then the date, 1946.

Here, let me help the handicapped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-9_(1946)
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
The Soviets offloaded some on Czechoslovakia who only ran them
for a year.
Did not happen.  Czechoslovakia was an assembly point for the Me 262
and there were hundreds of partially complete airframes and rail yards
full of spare parts already sitting IN Czechoslovakia when the war
ended.  The Soviets had not one thing to do with the Czechs getting
the S-92 and CS-92.
Being a satellite state they Soviets would have big say in what the Czechs
did.
Which is not the same as "The Soviets GAVE then to the Czechs", or
"The Soviets offloaded some on [them]."
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
Nothing points to the 262 being a ground breaking plane that set the trend
for all others after. Nothing whatsoever.
I don't see anyone here saying that it
'set the trend for all others after' - it
was an important milestone along the way.
Its only historical note is that is was the second plane in active enemy
action. Nothing else.
thanks for your analysis.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
I think you are really impressed with your own deductive powers.
I am very good at objective analysis having done systems analysis.
while the rest of us sat on thumbs waiting for your prophesized
arrival.
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
The book is about the utter failure of the GAF to
stop incursions by Mosquitos, using Me 262s among other things.  It is
no paean to the German jet, it is an evaluation of their failure.  But
keep inventing stuff - its fun to read.
Sounds sensible. When US troops took the factory, the found that Ernst
Heinkel a picture of the Mosquito on the wall of his office. They asked him
why. He said that was the plane he would have liked to have built.  Not the
jets.
Post by Gordon
So I should take "Adam Tooze's" opinion of the Me 262 over Captain
Brown's?
Yes.
why, exactly? Because you say so?
Post by Bay Man
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
Look at the big picture
I'm sitting in the shade of your ego - can't see the big picture.
Please try.
done.
Keith W
2011-12-12 23:38:05 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 12, 1:09 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
No, they didn't. The first thing they did was build copies of the Me
262 (original Su-9, not the later 1960s design).
They never. Look again.
Dude, yer killing me. Look at the 1946 Su-9 and tell me what you
see.
Go to Google.com, type in Suhkoi Su-9 and then the date, 1946.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-9_(1946)
Not to mention the fact that the Soviet RD-10 that powered it
was a straight copy of the Jumo-004

Keith
Bay Man
2011-12-13 10:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
On Dec 12, 1:09 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
No, they didn't. The first thing they did was build copies of the Me
262 (original Su-9, not the later 1960s design).
They never. Look again.
Dude, yer killing me. Look at the 1946 Su-9 and tell me what you
see.
Go to Google.com, type in Suhkoi Su-9 and then the date, 1946.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-9_(1946)
Let me help the obessed. FRom his wiki atrticle:

Note the following:
"The design began in 1944"
"the Su-9 was not a copy of the German aircraft."

It never made it to production, neither did any of the Su-9/Su-11/Su-13
prototypes
Post by Keith W
Not to mention the fact that the Soviet RD-10 that powered it
was a straight copy of the Jumo-004
That is true, as that was all they had, but they did iron out some problems.
The Soviets had a few prototype planes with jet engines attached. But from
that wiki article:

"The Su-13 (Samolyet KT) was a proposal to re-engine the aircraft with
Soviet copies of the Rolls-Royce Derwent turbojet"

Four Soviet design teams worked on new jet planes from 1944 to 1946:

Mig 9
Yak-15
Sukhoi Sukhoi 9/11/13
Lavochkin La-150

The Mig 9 and Lavochkin La-150 were forward cockpits. The Mig 9 had two
engines side-by-side in the body of the plane. The Soviets were not keen on
wing mounted engines.

The Mig 9 & YAK 15 entered service.

So much for the Soviets copying the 262 in 1946. Obsessions cloud reality.
Gordon
2011-12-13 17:22:49 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 13, 2:05 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Keith W
On Dec 12, 1:09 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
No, they didn't. The first thing they did was build copies of the Me
262 (original Su-9, not the later 1960s design).
They never. Look again.
Dude, yer killing me.  Look at the 1946 Su-9 and tell me what you
see.
Go to Google.com, type in Suhkoi Su-9 and then the date, 1946.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-9_(1946)
"The design began in 1944"
"the Su-9 was not a copy of the German aircraft."
Give me a frickin break, Bay - if you don't see a nearly identical
copy of an Me 262, you are blind. The Sukhoi was built in the months
following the first capture / recovery of an Me 262 by the Soviets and
the story of its being canceled by Stalin due to its overwhelming
resemblance to the plane it was based on. 99% of Soviet/Russian
sources refuse to come right out and say the Bull was copied from a
B-29, but it was -- they aren't going to come out and say, "we copied
the Me 262", but you have eyes in your head and should be able to
focus on the photo long enough to tell its a near identical copy.
Post by Bay Man
It never made it to production, neither did any of the Su-9/Su-11/Su-13
prototypes
Ok, I'll play - who canceled it and what was his stated objection to
the design?
Post by Bay Man
Post by Keith W
Not to mention the fact that the Soviet RD-10 that powered it
was a straight copy of the Jumo-004
That is true, as that was all they had, but they did iron out some problems.
The Soviets had a few prototype planes with jet engines attached. But from
"The Su-13 (Samolyet KT) was a proposal to re-engine the aircraft with
Soviet copies of the Rolls-Royce Derwent turbojet"
So we've gone from "no", to "true, but".
Post by Bay Man
Mig 9
Yak-15
Sukhoi Sukhoi 9/11/13
Lavochkin La-150
The Mig 9 and Lavochkin La-150 were forward cockpits. The Mig 9 had two
engines side-by-side in the body of the plane.  The Soviets were not keen on
wing mounted engines.
Yeah, the Su-9 really stands out, almost as if its a copy of a plane
from a different source.

By the way, Soviet aircraft with wing mounted jet engines:

Su-9/1946
Yak-25
Yak-28 (in service for 40+ years)

Wing mounted jet engines was something a lot of designers tried; it
was a first generation solution to fuselage blanking off the jet
intake while manuevering, causing engine stalls and flameouts.
Post by Bay Man
The Mig 9 & YAK 15 entered service.
I've got dozens of interceptions by Yak 15s in my flight logbook, but
thanks for the update.
Post by Bay Man
So much for the Soviets copying the 262 in 1946.
They did, as is evidenced by the photograph on that Wiki page if
nothing else. If you can't see that its a copy, its because you are
intentionally trolling.
Post by Bay Man
Obsessions cloud reality.
A lot like pugnacious ignorance.
Bay Man
2011-12-13 18:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
"The design began in 1944"
"the Su-9 was not a copy of the German aircraft."
Give me a frickin break, Bay - if you don't see a nearly identical
copy of an Me 262, you are blind.
It has straight wings not slightly swept. In other pics it looks nothing
like a 262, more like P-80
Post by Gordon
The Sukhoi was built in the months
following the first capture / recovery
of an Me 262 by the Soviets and
the story of its being canceled by Stalin
due to its overwhelming resemblance to the
plane it was based on.
The article clearly states it was not based on the 262. The bit about Stalin
is myth. He would be only interested in cost and performance not looks. It
was one of 4 prototypes, it was never opaerational.
In 45 they were not keen as they were hard to control if one engine was out.
Post by Gordon
Wing mounted jet engines was something
a lot of designers tried;
The Soviets only had one prototype that had wing mounts and it was rejected.
Post by Gordon
The Mig 9 & YAK 15 entered service.
Post by Bay Man
So much for the Soviets copying the 262 in 1946.
They did,
They never. Again you ignore fact.
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
Obsessions cloud reality.
A lot like pugnacious ignorance.
I must agree with you.
Bay Man
2011-12-13 10:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Bay Man
Its only historical note is that is
was the second plane in active enemy
action. Nothing else.
thanks for your analysis.
The above is all you need. It will be a short book.
Eunometic
2011-12-13 12:50:39 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 11, 10:15 pm, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
Post by Bay Man
Post by Eunometic
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The big problem with the early jets was the unavailability of
high-temperature alloys. The reason the Jumo was so bad is that it used
regular steel and had poor fuel control.
The Nene had a centrifugal flow compressor, as did the Whittle and the
J-33 used in the T-33/F-80s. Centrifugal flow compressors have a limit
of about 6.5:1 compression ratio, while axial flow compressors can
achieve much higher compression.
Jet engine advances have depended very much on metallurgy, in which the
US has led the world for the last 60 years.
The axial vs radial argument is fairly hackneyed.
That is so. Saying the Juno was axial flow, as if it was the first and no
one knew of axial flow, so it was the engine that made the jet age is
utterly silly. The engine that made the jet age was the Whittle W1. It
worked all of the time. It proved the jet could be moved over to civilian
uses.
There is a myth that is sustained, mainly in the USA, that the Germans
invented the jet engine and that the 262 was plane that made the jet age.
Technically con Ohains HeS 1 ran about 6 weeks before whitles engine.
The Germans flew a jet several years before the British did.
Bay Man
2011-12-13 15:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunometic
Post by Bay Man
There is a myth that is sustained, mainly in the USA, that the Germans
invented the jet engine and that the 262 was plane that made the jet age.
Technically con Ohains HeS 1 ran about
6 weeks before whitles engine.
The first jet as we know it, was successfuly run by Whittle in April 1937,
before Ohain succesfully ran his in Sept 1937.

5 months "after" Whittle.
Post by Eunometic
The Germans flew a jet several years
before the British did.
For 10 mins and the project was abandoned. The Brits would not put an engine
in a plane until the engine was ready. Even the Italians run a motorjet
plane before the Brits. No one took that seriously either.

"Frank Whittle: Father of the Jet Age"

'Today, Ian Whittle's primary concern is to protect his father's memory from
continued erosion. "It is now an accepted fact in America that my father did
not invent the jet, but that he and von Ohain - who became an American
citizen - co-invented it at the same time," he says. "Pretty soon, history
will be rewritten to say that it was a German or American invention."
Certainly, many engineering institutions now routinely describe von Ohain as
one of the "inventors" of the jet. So would the Germans have flown that
first jet [1939] if they hadn't pinched young Whittle's plans?"

"Certainly not. It was Frank's invention and they just copied him," says one
of the greatest test pilots in aviation history, Captain Eric Brown, late of
the Fleet Air Arm. He should know. Not only has he flown more planes than
anyone - 487 different types - but he was sent to Germany straight after the
war to get hold of all the Nazis' aviation technology. "I interrogated von
Ohain, who was very ambivalent about where he had got his ideas," says Capt
Brown from his Sussex home.

'But his sidekick was utterly straight-forward about it. He said that
Whittle's patent had been in every technical library in Germany even before
the war."

"I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that Frank Whittle was the real
inventor of the jet engine and that he could have produced a jet fighter by
1937 if the establishment had been on his side."'
Gordon
2011-12-13 17:26:20 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 13, 7:16 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
"Certainly not. It was Frank's invention and they just copied him," says one
of the greatest test pilots in aviation history, Captain Eric Brown, late of
the Fleet Air Arm.  He should know. Not only has he flown more planes than
anyone - 487 different types - but he was sent to Germany straight after the
war to get hold of all the Nazis' aviation technology.  "I interrogated von
Ohain, who was very ambivalent about where he had got his ideas," says Capt
Brown from his Sussex home.
So here you want us to accept Captain Brown's opinions as golden but
in other threads, toss them out, because we all know you can't trust a
pilot's view.

Rather shitty debate style there, Bay.
Bay Man
2011-12-13 18:33:09 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon" <***@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message news:6ef882d6-3e96-4d35-bcda-***@24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 13, 7:16 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Gordon
So here you want us to accept Captain Brown's opinions as golden but
in other threads, toss them out, because we all know you can't trust a
pilot's view.
I only gave the quotes. Opinions on planes and facts about patents are very
different.
Gordon
2011-12-13 21:24:01 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 13, 10:33 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
On Dec 13, 7:16 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Gordon
So here you want us to accept Captain Brown's opinions as golden but
in other threads, toss them out, because we all know you can't trust a
pilot's view.
I only gave the quotes. Opinions on planes and facts about patents are very
different.
I get it now - you are just a troll.
Bay Man
2011-12-13 23:12:39 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon" <***@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message news:42afa823-7f97-4f48-942d-***@18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 13, 10:33 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
On Dec 13, 7:16 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Gordon
So here you want us to accept Captain Brown's opinions as golden but
in other threads, toss them out, because we all know you can't trust a
pilot's view.
I only gave the quotes. Opinions on planes and facts about patents are very
different.
I get it now - you are just a troll.
A stock response to when you have been trounced.
Daryl
2011-12-13 23:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
On Dec 13, 10:33 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
On Dec 13, 7:16 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Gordon
So here you want us to accept Captain Brown's opinions as golden but
in other threads, toss them out, because we all know you can't trust a
pilot's view.
I only gave the quotes. Opinions on planes and facts about patents are very
different.
I get it now - you are just a troll.
Bay is giving us a different approach. Euno is as well. I gave
my research. While all pretty well go against the grain of
"Accepted" thought, all do have validity.

Find out who invented the axial flow Steam Turbine and you have
the winner for the one that actually influenced Jet Turbine the
earliest. But that would throw a huge damper over the
"Historians", now wouldn't it.
--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.
Keith W
2011-12-13 23:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
On Dec 13, 10:33 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
On Dec 13, 7:16 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Gordon
So here you want us to accept Captain Brown's opinions as golden
but in other threads, toss them out, because we all know you can't
trust a pilot's view.
I only gave the quotes. Opinions on planes and facts about patents
are very different.
I get it now - you are just a troll.
Bay is giving us a different approach. Euno is as well. I gave
my research. While all pretty well go against the grain of
"Accepted" thought, all do have validity.
Find out who invented the axial flow Steam Turbine and you have
the winner for the one that actually influenced Jet Turbine the
earliest. But that would throw a huge damper over the
"Historians", now wouldn't it.
Not really, the inventor was Sir Charles Parsons and his invention
was demonstrated rather spectacularly in 1894

http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/noflash/1875-1900/turbinia.html

Keith
Bay Man
2011-12-14 12:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith W
Post by Daryl
Post by Bay Man
On Dec 13, 10:33 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Bay Man
On Dec 13, 7:16 am, "Bay Man"
Post by Gordon
So here you want us to accept Captain Brown's opinions as golden
but in other threads, toss them out, because we all know you can't
trust a pilot's view.
I only gave the quotes. Opinions on planes and facts about patents
are very different.
I get it now - you are just a troll.
Bay is giving us a different approach. Euno is as well. I gave
my research. While all pretty well go against the grain of
"Accepted" thought, all do have validity.
Find out who invented the axial flow Steam Turbine and you have
the winner for the one that actually influenced Jet Turbine the
earliest. But that would throw a huge damper over the
"Historians", now wouldn't it.
Not really, the inventor was Sir Charles Parsons and his invention
was demonstrated rather spectacularly in 1894
http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/noflash/1875-1900/turbinia.html
The Turbinia unannounced moved around the anchored fleet at a display - very
fastlike a speed boat. So fast the decks were full of sailors wanting to see
this wonder fast boat.

HMS Dreadnought in 1906 was a major advance in battleship design and made
all ships instantly obsolete. "Dreadnought" was used as a term for a
battleships all over the world as all had to copy her. All nations copied
her. It used Parson's turbines.
Gordon
2011-12-13 17:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eunometic
Technically con Ohains HeS 1 ran about 6 weeks before whitles engine.
The Germans flew a jet several years before the British did.- Hide quoted text -
Bay only has one book, and it disagrees with you.
Bay Man
2011-12-13 18:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Eunometic
Technically con Ohains HeS 1 ran about 6 weeks before whitles engine.
The Germans flew a jet several years before the British did.- Hide quoted text -
Bay only has one book, and it disagrees with you.
It is clear you read the same Disney books.
Bay Man
2011-12-11 09:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
The Jumo would have gone the way of the motorjet plane and rocket planes -
niche applications for military use only.
BTW, the design of motorjets was known since the early 1900s. In the 1920s &
30s, the UK and Germany dismissed these designs as poor. Every time they
put together a design and did the numbers they just did not add up. They
could have put one together to show that jet thrust works, but they knew
that so did not waste time and money on an engine design that was inherently
flawed and offered nothing over prop planes
The big problem with the early jets was the
unavailability of high-temperature alloys. The
reason the Jumo was so bad is that it used
regular steel and had poor fuel control.
There was lot wrong with that engine. Motorjets did not require special
alloys. Motorjets required piston engines with a high power/weight ratio
and excellent fuel economy. That was limited pre and during WW2. I think the
amazing two-stroke RR Grecy engine may have made the motorjet feasible but
no R&D was undertaken on motorjets and Grecy R&D was stopped when jet
engines were clearly feasible. The German Junkers opposed piston diesel
engines may have been suitable, but the engine needed to be long and thin
with its heat and exhaust running down the tube to the jet at the end. The
Italian motorjet engine was 40 cylinders.
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The Nene had a centrifugal flow compressor, as did the Whittle and the
J-33 used in the T-33/F-80s. Centrifugal flow compressors have a limit
of about 6.5:1 compression ratio, while axial flow compressors can
achieve much higher compression.
I am fully aware of the differences. It does not mean the axial is better
than centrifugal. It depends on what you want to achieve.
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Jet engine advances have depended very much on metallurgy, in which the
US has led the world for the last 60 years.
The US has not, although they are up there with all else. High performance
jet engines depends on special alloys. Low performace does not.
Orval Fairbairn
2011-12-11 20:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bay Man
Post by Orval Fairbairn
Post by Bay Man
The Jumo would have gone the way of the motorjet plane and rocket planes -
niche applications for military use only.
BTW, the design of motorjets was known since the early 1900s. In the 1920s &
30s, the UK and Germany dismissed these designs as poor. Every time they
put together a design and did the numbers they just did not add up. They
could have put one together to show that jet thrust works, but they knew
that so did not waste time and money on an engine design that was inherently
flawed and offered nothing over prop planes
The big problem with the early jets was the
unavailability of high-temperature alloys. The
reason the Jumo was so bad is that it used
regular steel and had poor fuel control.
There was lot wrong with that engine. Motorjets did not require special
alloys. Motorjets required piston engines with a high power/weight ratio
and excellent fuel economy. That was limited pre and during WW2. I think the
amazing two-stroke RR Grecy engine may have made the motorjet feasible but
no R&D was undertaken on motorjets and Grecy R&D was stopped when jet
engines were clearly feasible. The German Junkers opposed piston diesel
engines may have been suitable, but the engine needed to be long and thin
with its heat and exhaust running down the tube to the jet at the end. The
Italian motorjet engine was 40 cylinders.
The whole concept of a "motorjet" (aka ducted fan) is an exercise in
futility, where the thrust decreases as speed increases, due to the
horsepower limits of the fan driver. Ducted fans have proven out to have
more drag than a simple prop, yet they are more complex.
Bay Man
2011-12-12 00:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
The whole concept of a "motorjet" (aka ducted fan) is an exercise in
futility, where the thrust decreases as speed increases, due to the
horsepower limits of the fan driver. Ducted fans have proven out to have
more drag than a simple prop, yet they are more complex.
To beb fair on these engiens, they could do with looking at again. Piston
engines using valves have a highly limited rev range and vibrate far too
much. Two-stroke, valveless engines rev higher and are smoother. They could
use gearings to get higher crank and hence compressor speeds, but that extra
weight and complexity.

I have always looked at this design and thought of replacing the piston
engine with a small, powerful, modern, highly efficient electric motor,
which can rev very highly. In the plane's body a rotary engine (high
power/weight ratio and smooth - essential for a plane) acting as a generator
providing electricity to two wing mounted engines. It can be mounted where
it gives superior balance. A Rotary running at a constant speed, at its
"sweet spot", is more efficient compared to a piston engine. I always
wondered how it would perform and whether it would be a good economic
replacement for small twin engined piston planes.

Switching to a ram jet at speeds over 0.5 mach? Possible. An Air
Turborocket is possible. However ram jets, of all types, tend to be only
suitable for constant speed single use applications, like missiles.
Loading...