Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yes; even the Germans found out that being too late with too little mean anything in end. Britain never got theirs into combat thus no help at all. If you want to see what won the war in both Europe and pacific examine production of fighters alone and progress of prop planes. The realize that US navy in just pacific was larger than all the world combined at end of war. Now that is what won both wars. Britain was basically broken by shaortly after D day and include man power to increase force. Even today no NATO country other than US has budget required by NATO membership which is 2% of GDP.
yes; even the Germans found out that being too late with too little mean anything in end. Britain never got theirs into combat thus no help at all.
The Meteor was in combat. They operated from Holland an Belgium.
Quote:
Britain was basically broken by shaortly after D day and include man power to increase force. Even today no NATO country other than US has budget required by NATO membership which is 2% of GDP.
The British formed an army of over 2.6 million on the Burma Indian border and then moved in Burma when ready. You need to do more reading.
I have read this thread with great interest. I knew a man that owned and flew an early British jet plane. It used a centrifugal flow turbo jet mounted in the fuselage, Unfortunately I have forgotten its name. He said it flew very nicely but used a LOT of runway.
John-UK - I am not obligated to believe your claims to British jet fighter superiority. The ME 262 was produced under horrendous conditions without any time for development. I was a very effective interceptor of piston engine bombers as illustrated by the number of our planes shot down by this inferior aircraft. I see your posts as an attempt to praise Britain without letting realism interfere. I simply do not believe your story.
Speaking of Germen WW2 fighters have you ever heard of the Horner X-10. This was a flying wing with much higher performance than any other fighter of WW2. It was made of plywood much like the Mosquito to reduce the demand for strategic aluminum and powered by two Jumo or BMW turbojets mounted in the fuselage. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe it was built very late in the war and not used. There is one in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC.
The WW2 German jet engines were extremely unreliable and had low performances with very high fuel consumption. The German axial turbojets never worked properly and were developed up to 1953 by the French to get a usable engine. They lost a lot of time playing around with the German engines, instead of working with the British. The French and Soviets after WW2 tried to improve the German engines and largely failed.
The Axial turbojet is the preferred method of compression in modern turbojet engines, turbofans most commonly have axial compression stages after the low pressure fan too. The famous RR Avon was an axial turbojet, that saw service in the Canberra, Lightning, Hawker Hunter, the Comet (and originally the Nimrod), and the P&W F100 used in the F15 and F16 is an axial compressor low bypass turbofan, the Roll Royce Trent Series of Turbofans (777, 787, and Airbus 3xx series) are all axial compressor turbofans.
The fault was not the design, it was the materials. Indeed from a successful design perspective, Junkers was on the more successful path than the Whittle W2 centrifugal compressor, since history has shown that the axial compressor is the preferred technology.
The Soviets made the yakovely-15 from captured Jumo 109-004B's and then went on to manufacture the Klimov RD-10 turbojet which is a direct copy of the 004B, the yakovely-17 used the RD-10A turbojet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
The BMW 003/Jumo004 was considered unusable. It was tested on the first French jet aircraft, the 1946 So6000 Triton, but overheated and exploded. The plane only flew with a RR Nene turbojet.It was tested on the first French jet aircraft, the 1946 So6000 Triton, but overheated and exploded. The plane only flew with a RR Nene turbojet.
Not true Triton 01 the only Triton powered by any Jumo 004B engine (and only one engine) completed 8 test flights and was retired in November 1947 it was considered underpowered. The Triton 02 which was powered by a Rateau engine (French design) never flew. Triton 03 a Nene powered (as were all subsequent Tritons) completed two test flights before being permanently grounded for mechanical problems (currently at La Bourget), Triton 04 completed 189 flights with the Nene retired in 1950, and Triton 05 completed 8 test flights before being grounded for a forced landing after 8 flights.
It's no surprise the Triton on one J004 was underpowered, the Me262 was 14,000 lbs loaded and had two engines, the Triton was 10,000lbs loaded and had one. But you'll notice that Triton 01 was retired, not destroyed, nor grounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
The Meteor was in combat. They operated from Holland an Belgium.
The Meteor was in combat during WW2 but limited to ground attack and armed reconnaissance. However to say it was a better aircraft than the Me 262 regardless of cobbled together with the materials available to the Germans at the time that it was made is a stretch.
Combat aircraft are judged by their combat records, so lets look at the period where the 262 and Meteor were in service, which is around 1944-1945
Me 262 claimed 300-450 (that is not contested by the allies) air to air kills against manned aircraft and a 5:1 kill/loss ratio.
Gloucester Meteor claimed 14 V-1's (unmanned drones effectively straight and level flight), and around a 50 parked aircraft (not manned, not running, sitting on the tarmac). No kill/loss ratio as there were no kills to record (a straight and level flight aerial drone is not a combat kill). It did have some ground attack missions, which the Me 262 did not have.
Why the difference? Who cares? The difference exists, therefore claims that only one worked may from the evidence show that indeed it appears only one did, perhaps not the one you intend. The Meteor had more success as a ground attack aircraft during WW2 than as an Air Superiority Fighter, which for an air superiority fighter is not a good title to claim. Now post WW2 development made the Meteor a much better aircraft, the specs of the F8 Meteor beat the 262 in all areas, but the F8 entered service in 1950 and one Derwent 8 engine generated more thrust than both Wellands (and the F8 Meteor carried two).
Germany was sooo far ahead of the entire freakin' world in 1945 its scary.
I'd love to know the truth about Hans Kammler & the Junkers 390 MASSIVE plane he was last seen boarding. Its probably like Mengele' & Adolph who lived out their days in Argentenia.
My God the History channel docs do make an impact.
The Jumo 004 axial design failed as a reliable long service life engine because of heavy design faults. The engine had such a short service life, even if it was made of superior metals. Consider it more of a rocket. The engine could be regarded as a disposable unit, like a rocket, as the engine flew so few missions in planes. The failing engine killed more German pilots than Allied pilots. Piston engined Hawker Tempests at low level would out race 262's and bring them down. The Meteor outperformed the Hawker Tempest in all respects.
The French based their post war jet engine research and development on the Jumo axial-flow turbojet. The French would not work with the British out of pride. British jet R&D, and complete finished engines, were given to the USA. The most successful early jet engine was the RR Nene which was used by the Soviets and USA, being made in both countries. The French took 8 years, before they produced a reliable version of the flawed Jumo engine. In 1945 SNECMA considered the original BMW 003/Jumo 004 unusable aiming to iron it design faults. The ATAR project, initially based on the Jumo 004, kept the French back in turbo jet technology.
The Jumo engine became very hot - a design flaw. This defect was instantly noted by the French on the 1946 SO 6000 Triton prototype, and by the Soviets on the 1946 MIG 9. The Soviets replaced the BMW 004B2 with a RR Nene engine which worked without problems.
The reliable and powerful RR Nene was produced in 1944. The design was not used by the British much being superseded by the axial-flow RR Avon. It was used in Hawker Sea Hawk and the Supermarine Attacker. The engine was taken up greatly by other nations. In the USA the RR Nene was built under licence as the Pratt & Whitney J42, powering the Grumman F9F Panther. The USSR used it in the famous MIG 15.
For comparison:
Welland engine from the Meteor mk 1, 1944: 150h TBO 7.1 kN thrust.
Derwent engine from the Meteor mk 3, 1944: 180h TBO 8.9 kN thrust.
BMW 003 7.83 kN thrust.
Jumo 004 8.8 kN thrust.
The Meteors never dropped out of the sky with engine burn up. The Meteor reached 616 mph in 1945. The Jumo engine attempting that speed would have melted or blown up.
During WW2, the British were designing and testing planes for carrier and long rang bombing usage. Many types of jet engines were being R&Ded. The de Havilland Vampire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire was the first jet to land and take off from a carrier in 1945, which first flew in 1943. If the war in the Pacific was to run into 1946 these jet would have been used against Japan.
To say the Germans were ahead in jet technology, engine and plane, in 1944/45 is stretching the bounds credulity.
Germany was sooo far ahead of the entire freakin' world in 1945 its scary.
In what?
They had the V2, based on Goddard (American).
Jet engines based on the British.
They were behind in RADAR
They were behind in SONAR
Their piston engined fighters were second rate to Allied fighters.
They never had a heavy bomber as they failed when making one.
They were behind in tanks (the British & Soviets made better tanks)
They did some work in guided bombs - which were easily jammed.
Combat aircraft are judged by their combat records,
The Meteor was not used over German territory as if one went down they would get the superior British engine. The Allies were overwhelming in the skies and were not desperate to put jets up. They were mainly thinking of post war development, even in 1944/45.
You have to compare the engine and plane like with like. The 262 was a dog. The Meteor is still flying as test bed by Martin Baker. IT was used by make air forces until the 1980s. No 262 was. The Jumo engine was very poor as the Germans were way behind in jet technology. Read my post again. It is all there.
The Jumo and BMW engines were unreliable due to lack of strategic metals. The US got a hold of several 262s and flew them for several years after installing various high stress parts made of strategic metals. The engines were prone to overheating if on the ground at idle much like the RR Merlin engine.
The aircraft were advanced for the time due to aerodynamics such as swept wings, leading edge slats.
All early jets suffered from compressor stalls and engine fires if the power was advanced to rapidly. Power had to be advanced incrementally allowing the engine to properly spool up.
Whittle had a good engine though very underpowered and a mustang could keep up with it. Whereas the Mustang had to be in a full power dive to catch a 262.
My .02.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
