British v. German jet engines (Pete Stickeny)

[Cub Driver]

Pete Stickney wrote in another thread:

(The Aliies, after all, succeeded in 1943 in
producing what the Germans could not - practical, reliable jet engines
that could be flown for more than a day before needing to be
overhauled, and which could be worked on by typical mechanics. Before
the Me 262 appeared in 1944, both the Americans and the British were
running engines with more than twice the thrust, and 10 times the life
of the best realized German efforts.)

Pete, the rough figures I carry in my mind is 10 hours TBO for the
Jumo engine in the Me 262 and 25 hours for the GE? engine in the P-80.
I have also seen 50 hours mentioned in a 1945 briefing about the P-80.

I'd be grateful if you could flesh out the parenthesis. The only
engine I know anything about is the Whittle turbojet as modified by GE
for the Bell YP-59A. I never followed up on what changed before the
P-80 got running.

And what about that P-80? It seems to have had an unwonted number of
crashes for an airplane that turned into the longest-serving jet ever
built (still in service, as I understand, as the T-33 in recce and
light-attack roles for various air forces).

Thanks!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pete Stickney wrote in another thread:
>
> (The Aliies, after all, succeeded in 1943 in
> producing what the Germans could not - practical, reliable jet engines
> that could be flown for more than a day before needing to be
> overhauled, and which could be worked on by typical mechanics. Before
> the Me 262 appeared in 1944, both the Americans and the British were
> running engines with more than twice the thrust, and 10 times the life
> of the best realized German efforts.)
>
> Pete, the rough figures I carry in my mind is 10 hours TBO for the
> Jumo engine in the Me 262 and 25 hours for the GE? engine in the P-80.
> I have also seen 50 hours mentioned in a 1945 briefing about the P-80.
>

Dont know about the GE engines but the Wellands used by the
Meteor in 1944 were rather conservatively rated at 180 hours

http://www.enginehistory.org/r-r_w2b.htm

IRC the first production Welland ran for around 2000 hours
on the test bed.

Keith



> I'd be grateful if you could flesh out the parenthesis. The only
> engine I know anything about is the Whittle turbojet as modified by GE
> for the Bell YP-59A. I never followed up on what changed before the
> P-80 got running.
>
> And what about that P-80? It seems to have had an unwonted number of
> crashes for an airplane that turned into the longest-serving jet ever
> built (still in service, as I understand, as the T-33 in recce and
> light-attack roles for various air forces).
>
> Thanks!
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Cub Driver > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Pete Stickney wrote in another thread:
>
> >
> > These allied engines were so succesfull and powerfull that non of them
> > could be installed on an aircraft. <irony off>
> >
>
> What propelled the Meteor then ?
>
> Rubber bands ?

The Welland of the Meteor I could, admitedly, outperform a rubber band

The Meteor III improved the situation but was still no faster than a
top line piston fighter at altitude. (TA 152H, P51H, Spitefull, Do
335, P47M)




>
> Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
m...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Cub Driver > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Pete Stickney wrote in another thread:
> >
> > >
> > > These allied engines were so succesfull and powerfull that non of them
> > > could be installed on an aircraft. <irony off>
> > >
> >
> > What propelled the Meteor then ?
> >
> > Rubber bands ?
>
> The Welland of the Meteor I could, admitedly, outperform a rubber band
>
> The Meteor III improved the situation but was still no faster than a
> top line piston fighter at altitude. (TA 152H, P51H, Spitefull, Do
> 335, P47M)
>

Meteor III was considered superior to the Tempest V in all depts
except for roll rate, the Meteor III's with long nacelles were faster
than the Me-262 and the Meteor IV's were capable of 580 mph

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Cub Driver > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > Pete Stickney wrote in another thread:
>
> > > >
> > > > These allied engines were so succesfull and powerfull that non of them
> > > > could be installed on an aircraft. <irony off>
> > > >
> > >
> > > What propelled the Meteor then ?
> > >
> > > Rubber bands ?
> >
> > The Welland of the Meteor I could, admitedly, outperform a rubber band
> >
> > The Meteor III improved the situation but was still no faster than a
> > top line piston fighter at altitude. (TA 152H, P51H, Spitefull, Do
> > 335, P47M)
> >
>
> Meteor III was considered superior to the Tempest V in all depts
> except for roll rate, the Meteor III's with long nacelles were faster
> than the Me-262 and the Meteor IV's were capable of 580 mph
>
> Keith
>

The Meteor was a well designed aircaft but it did require a lot more
thrust and development to actualy perform as a 'fast Jet' and clearly
the concept lived on in the Canberra bomber with its high speed and
high altitude but it was intrinsically a transonic aircraft.

Its also inplausible to assume that Messerschmitt would have been
siting on its hands with Me 262A1a fitted with 880kg thrust Jumo 004B1
while the British developed Meteor I, Meteor III, Meteor III long
nacelle etc.

The Jumo 004C increased thrust to 1000kg pushing the Me 262 top speed
to 578mph (its record level flight speed), while the Jumo 004D pushed
the thrust to 1050kg.

At that point the much lighter and much much smaller frontal area
BMW003D at 1100kg thrust might have been ready with its much better
fuel consumption and lower drag and latter still the Me 262 with
Heinkel Hirth HeS 011 with 1300 (hopefully raising to 1700kg)
turbojets installed in the armpit position. (the BMW003D was needed
for long range reconaisence versions of the Arado 234)

[Eunometic]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Cub Driver > writes:
> >
> > Pete Stickney wrote in another thread:
> >
> > (The Aliies, after all, succeeded in 1943 in
> > producing what the Germans could not - practical, reliable jet engines
> > that could be flown for more than a day before needing to be
> > overhauled, and which could be worked on by typical mechanics. Before
> > the Me 262 appeared in 1944, both the Americans and the British were
> > running engines with more than twice the thrust, and 10 times the life
> > of the best realized German efforts.)
> >
> > Pete, the rough figures I carry in my mind is 10 hours TBO for the
> > Jumo engine in the Me 262 and 25 hours for the GE? engine in the P-80.
> > I have also seen 50 hours mentioned in a 1945 briefing about the P-80.
>
> The 10 hour TBO for a Jumo 004 is rather misleading. According to
> Aircraft Engineering's analysis of the Jumo 004B, you had to drop the
> engine set somewhere between 6 and 10 hours for a teardown and
> mandatory turbine wheel replacement. (Which was a shop job, and
> couldn't be done in the field. Balancing the compressor-turbine rotor
> was critical, adn was a hand-fit job). The burner canse were also
> checked and replaced as needed at the same time. You ran it for
> another 5-10 hours, and threw it away.

The BMW003 was a far more impressive engine in terms of service than
the Jumo 004 despite being introduced into service latter.

There were also several variants of the Jumo 004 with different
serviceabilities.

The first engines captured by the allies (An Arado 234 of III.KG76)
were the Jumo 004B1 which although the main production engine didn't
have the hollow turbine blades yet and also had compressor vibration
problems)

The next production series that entered service, the jumo 004B4, (B2
and B3 never entered mass production) introduced hollow turbine blades
and changes in cooling bleed air and combustion system as well as
solved compressor vibration problems. These changes were capable of
increasing thrust via a greater exhaust temperature but the the
potential improvements were eschewed to improve service life
considerably.

The combustion chambers were made of ordinary steel treated with an
aluminium oxide to reduce corrosion. They were being continiously
inproved with new gas flows and cooling film systems.

Had they been made of even ordinary stainless steel they would have
had a vastly increased service life.

The engine used two types of hollow turbine blades of the alloy
tinadur or cromadur. Tinadure Bladed engines used ony 6.5kg of
nickel and 4.6kg of chromium and 0.2kg of molydenum (for the whole
engine). cromadure bladed Jumo 004B4s used only 3.5kg kg of nickel
and 4.7kg of chromium and 0.2kg of molydenum (for the whole engine)

There must have been nearly a hundred kg on an allied engine!

The Jumo 004C made further improvements in service life as well as
sericeabillity and was in mass production when the war ended.

One thing that also has to be remembered was that the confusion and
paucity of raw materials often led to inproper substitution that
reduce engine life. In the case of one raw material on the BMW 003 it
was changed seven times such was the confusion at the end of the war.

The Jumo 004B had accesibility problems to the combustion chambers
which meant that the engine had to be dropped down from the aircraft
to be replaced. The life nvertheless reached 60 hours at the end of
the war.

The Powerjets (whittles company) analysis of the first Jumo 004B1
engines indicates that if a higher level of supply of nickel could be
achieved these engines would improve. One important technique was to
pull a violin bow over the turbine blade to make sure they had been
soldered into the roots properly (this was a critical point of
failure)

The BMW003A1/A2 had a very reliable combustion chamber which lasted
200 hours. The turbine entered service with a MTBO (service of
replacement was in the field and on the wing) of 20 hours and ended up
with 50 hours without trouble: the limitation being the attachments of
the turbine to the disk.

The Anular combustion chamber must have been the most impressive of
any WW2 engine as it ahieved a gas velocity of only 110 m/s.

It appears that BMW was about to receive an order to develop the BMW
P3006; a scaled up BMW003 of 1700kg thrust.

>
> The early J33s get hot section inspections every 25-50 hours. You
> split the airplane and looked at the turbine blades with a borescope.
> (P-80 tails came off as a unit to give full access to the engine -
> It's not a big job - I've seen T-33s (The same airplane, at that
> point) done in about an hour. TBO was originally set for 100 hours,
> and that was bumped up to 400 hours after the war. In 1950-51,
> according to the AIAA Yearbook, they bumped it up to 1,000 Hrs.
>
> The J35, the Axial that GE also developed in the 1944 timeframe,
> started with about a 25 Hr TBO, which was gradually incresed to 500
> Hrs before the Korean War. (Save for one batch that used farm
> machinery bearings, and those didn't last long). Post Korea, J35 TBO
> was increased to more than 1000 Hrs.
>
> The Rolls Nene/Pratt & WHitney J42 started with a 250 Hr TBO, and
> this was increased to 1000 Hrs in 1949.
>
> It ought to be noted that the big recips, especially those used on
> fighters, were usually pulled for overhaul every 100-150 Hrs.
>
> > I'd be grateful if you could flesh out the parenthesis. The only
> > engine I know anything about is the Whittle turbojet as modified by GE
> > for the Bell YP-59A. I never followed up on what changed before the
> > P-80 got running.
>
> Basically, the engines got bigger, and ran hotter. The biggest
> changes on the Allied side were in the areas of the fuel controls.
> Originally, the pilot directly controlled fuel flow with the
> throttle. That's doable, but the engine required a widely varying
> fuel flow depending on speed and altitude. (The faster you go, the
> more air you're using, and the more fuel you have to burn. The higher
> you go, the less fuel you burn becasue of the lower density.) The
> pilot also had to moniter the turbine temperature (Gas temperature
> after the turbine, usually (TET - Turbine Exit Temperature) which
> stays pretty fixed with the critical TIT (Turbine Inlet Temperature),
> adn the engine RPM to make sure he wasn't exceeding any
> limits. (Exceeding limits would casue the turbine wheel to come
> apart). Fast throttle movements could very easily lead to an
> overtemperature, or flame the engine out. Improved fuel controls were
> little hydromechanical analog computers that monitored the various
> parameters, adjusted things to meed the pilot's demands for power, and
> controlled the fuel flow accordingly. The Brits actually ended up
> with a lead in this area until the early '50s.
>
> > And what about that P-80? It seems to have had an unwonted number of
> > crashes for an airplane that turned into the longest-serving jet ever
> > built (still in service, as I understand, as the T-33 in recce and
> > light-attack roles for various air forces).
>
> I've just done some poking around, and I don't see that the P-80's
> accident rate was any worse than that of any contemporary fighters.
> P-61s had an accident rate of about 120/100,000 hrs, and they wer the
> safest of the bunch. (The worst were P-39s, with a rate of
> 249/100,000 flt hrs).
>
> There were accidents with the early jets that were certainly due to
> their "jet-ness", if you will. A case in point was Richard Bong's
> crash. He took off in a P-80 without turning on the alternate fuel
> booster pump. (A checklist item) just after takeoff, the fuel control
> packed it in, and he ended up flaming out. As I've alluded to before,
> jets don't decelerate like recips. Even the early jets were very
> clean (Almost like sailplanes) and, until you got into the transonic
> range, there wasn't a whole lot of drag. With prope it's different -
> when you pull back on the power, you get a big increase in drag as the
> slipstream tries to drive the prop. That makes formation flying, or
> entering the landing pattern, a lot easier. The low drag also meant
> that when you pointed the nose down, the jet accelerated like a rock.
>
> The early jets also were quite underpowered at low speeds (That
> thrust/horsepower thing) and the engines didn't respond quickly - 8-16
> seconds from Flight Idle to Max Power wasn't unusual. So they didn't
> accelerate well at all. Paradoxically, though, once they got going,
> it didn't take long before they were pushing into the transonic range,
> and things would really get squirrely. (Roland Beamont established
> the maximum Mach Number for the Meteor IV's speed record by entering
> the Meteor's Mach Tuck (Meatboxes would nose down) at roughly 610 mph
> and 50 ft altitude.) Vampires would porpoise, banging on alternating
> postive and negative G until something broke. Venoms would lose all
> elevator control. P-80s would buffet like mad, and the elevator
> effectiveness would decrease. F-84s (The straight winged ones) would
> pitch up at something like 7 or 8 Gs. Unlike piston engined
> fighters, these airplane could reach that region in level flight, on a
> good day. So yo couldn't just hop into one and fly it - you had to
> develop a whole new set of reflexes. That was one of the reasons that
> Lockheed stretched the F-80 into the TF-80C/T-33.
> Jets can be deceptively easy to fly - they're very smooth, there's no
> torque, and there's only one power lever to worry about, rather than
> the handful of stuff that goes with, say, a Merlin or R2800. But they
> can also get you into trouble fast, and booouncing around in teh Mach
> Buffet at 10,000' with the nose 45 degrees below the horizon is no
> place for On the Job Training.

[Cub Driver]

On 10 Aug 2004 00:32:05 -0700, (Eunometic)
wrote:

>The life nvertheless reached 60 hours at the end of
>the war.

Huh. The Messerschmitt test pilots who flew the 262 for the Americans
in May 1945 claimed a TBO of 25 hours.

How did one know which engine was in a given aircraft? Was the TBO
stamped on it?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Eunometic]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> On 10 Aug 2004 00:32:05 -0700, (Eunometic)
> wrote:
>
> >The life nvertheless reached 60 hours at the end of
> >the war.
>
> Huh. The Messerschmitt test pilots who flew the 262 for the Americans
> in May 1945 claimed a TBO of 25 hours.
>
> How did one know which engine was in a given aircraft? Was the TBO
> stamped on it?

There were several production versons: the Jumo 004B1 which had solid
tinadur (about 40% iron, 30% titanium, 15% nickel, 15% chromium)
turbine blades then the much improved Jumo 004B4 which could have
hollow turbine blades of either deep drawn tinadur or folded and
welded cromadure ( about 68% Iron, 14% chromium and 18% manganese) and
other changes to combustion and copressors.

The reason was that the Germans had the two types made as backups to
each other and neither company could supply sufficient blades alone.
cromadur was supposedly inferior due to higher creep but it was
actualy more reliable in service because its process of manufacture
(folding and welding) was more controllable; tinadur had to be deep
drawn as it could not be welded.

I assume theat the eingines had seriel numbers or block numbers that
identified their peculiarities.

The Jumo 003C4 also entered production. It was delivered to the
factories (Messerschmitt, Gotha etc) and flown but it may not have
entered service.

This is the obiturary of Franz Anselm; it talks of the MTBO of the
Jumo 004
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/september97/features/franz/franz.html

"With hollow blades of Cromadur sheet metal, the complete 004B engine
contained less than 5 pounds of chromium. The first production model
of the 004B weighed 220 pounds less than the 004A. Additional
modifications were made to the first compressor stages. A series of
100-hour tests were completed on several engines, and time between
overhaul of 50 hours was achieveda"

It's clear the article refers to 004B4 engines with cromadur blades.


>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > Cub Driver > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > Pete Stickney wrote in another thread:
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These allied engines were so succesfull and powerfull that non of
> them
> > > > > > could be installed on an aircraft. <irony off>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What propelled the Meteor then ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rubber bands ?
> > > >
> > > > The Welland of the Meteor I could, admitedly, outperform a rubber band
> > > >
> > > > The Meteor III improved the situation but was still no faster than a
> > > > top line piston fighter at altitude. (TA 152H, P51H, Spitefull, Do
> > > > 335, P47M)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Meteor III was considered superior to the Tempest V in all depts
> > > except for roll rate, the Meteor III's with long nacelles were faster
> > > than the Me-262 and the Meteor IV's were capable of 580 mph
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> >
> > The Meteor was a well designed aircaft but it did require a lot more
> > thrust and development to actualy perform as a 'fast Jet' and clearly
> > the concept lived on in the Canberra bomber with its high speed and
> > high altitude but it was intrinsically a transonic aircraft.
> >
> > Its also inplausible to assume that Messerschmitt would have been
> > siting on its hands with Me 262A1a fitted with 880kg thrust Jumo 004B1
> > while the British developed Meteor I, Meteor III, Meteor III long
> > nacelle etc.
> >
> > The Jumo 004C increased thrust to 1000kg pushing the Me 262 top speed
> > to 578mph (its record level flight speed), while the Jumo 004D pushed
> > the thrust to 1050kg.
> >
> > At that point the much lighter and much much smaller frontal area
> > BMW003D at 1100kg thrust might have been ready with its much better
> > fuel consumption and lower drag and latter still the Me 262 with
> > Heinkel Hirth HeS 011 with 1300 (hopefully raising to 1700kg)
> > turbojets installed in the armpit position. (the BMW003D was needed
> > for long range reconaisence versions of the Arado 234)
>
> Trouble is by then theUSAAF would have been delivering a
> special physics package to Berlin using a B-29 escorted by P-80's
>
> Keith

That is certainly outside the scope of the discusion whcih relates to
the comparative merrits of Allied and German jet engines and aircraft.

Delivering a nuclear bomb to Berlin, in the circumstances that the war
had of been delayed due to for instance a delay in D-Day produced by
some kind of advance in jet engines (ie getting them into service 1
year earlier) or submarine warfare (getting the Type XXI subamrine in
service 1 year earlier) would have been far more difficult than
delivering one to japan.

The Germans always managed approximetly 1%-3% attrition against allied
aircraft by FLAK alone and sometimes against the RAAF much higher
(cities defended by 128mm cannon). On top of that German aircaft had
the performance to intercept B29s wheras the Japanese had not. The
477mph 50,000ft service ceiling TA 152H1 could get at a B29 without
difficulty (and it could out turn any allied aircraft to boot) as
could both the 458mph Fw 190 D12 or Me 460mph 109K4 or the Do 335 with
similar speed and long range standoff 30mm cannon. Then of course
there was the Me 163 rocket fighter which at 580mph while in a
20,000ft/minute climb could slash through even an early P80 escort and
of course the Me 262 possibly armed not only with R4M missiles but
standoff missiles such as the R100 or X4 guided missile. By that time
the Germans would have caught up in microwave techniques (they had the
FuG 244N3 microwave radar in production) as well and achieved a
substantial increase in FLAK accuracy.

So there was a substantial chance that an attempt to deliver a nuclear
bomb to Germany by say the end of 1945 or early 1946 would have been
shot down and that the bomb would fall into German hands.

It would have been a substantially riskier endeavour.

The Mig 15s swept the B29s from the sky over Korea.

The Jet was the end of the piston bomber.

There were only a small number of technical decisions that could have
gone either way that ensured a German defeat in 1945.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

>
> The Germans always managed approximetly 1%-3% attrition against allied
> aircraft by FLAK alone and sometimes against the RAAF much higher
> (cities defended by 128mm cannon). On top of that German aircaft had
> the performance to intercept B29s wheras the Japanese had not.

A B-29 operating at night would have been nigh on impossible
to intercept. The only aircraft even remotely capable of
reaching it would have been one of the handful of Me-262
night fighters that were available. Of course by May 1945
the Luftwaffe was virtually nonexistent with most surviving
aircraft grounded by lack of fuel or pilots.

Flak was a risk of course but even the Flak 128 was pretty
much at the limit when dealing with the B-29

> The Mig 15s swept the B29s from the sky over Korea

No sir they didnt. They inflicted losses to be sure but
B-29s detached from Twentieth Air Force continued flying
combat missions until the end of the war in 1953. After
October 1951 they flew their missions at night.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

Thanks for the information. You might be interested in a book called
American Raiders, by Wolfgang Samuel, about Project Lusty that
gathered up German "stuff" after the war, and especially the Me-262.
They got a whole squadron of them, and two Arado Blitzs, which with
other planes were loaded onto HMS Reaper and taken back to the U.S. I
assume one of the Arados is the restored model in the Udvar-Hazy annex
of NASM out at Dulles airport.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:05:07 GMT, "The Enlightenment"
> wrote:

>The BMWs translating exhaust cone was opperated electrically rather than
>hydraulicaly and was not automatic though this was planed. The pilot
>simply had 3 position switch to select closed, open and intermediate. (it
>was needed mainly during startup and idle)

As I recall, the American pilots flying the Me-262 (Jumo engines) were
instructed to watch the cone so they would know how much thrust the
engine was putting out.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 06:44:27 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> two Arado Blitzs

Make that four. Two of them went to the navy.

It seems they almost never flew the Blitz. The tires were so bad they
blew at inopportune moments.

The other continual problem with all the German war trophies was the
brakes. One pilot wrecked an Me-262 at Philadelphia? when he came in a
bit hot, landed long, and couldn't brake to a stop before running off
the end into the ditch.

One of the things the Americans loved about the 262 was its modular
construction. Most bad landings could be salvaged by bringing in a new
nose or wing. (The front landing gear was weak, evidently, and they
collapsed a couple of them.) The Philadelphia? (it was in PA anyhow)
crash couldn't be salvaged, however.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Tom Cervo]

>It seems they almost never flew the Blitz. The tires were so bad they
>blew at inopportune moments.
>
>The other continual problem with all the German war trophies was the
>brakes. One pilot wrecked an Me-262 at Philadelphia? when he came in a
>bit hot, landed long, and couldn't brake to a stop before running off
>the end into the ditch.

One of the points of contrast that Brits like to draw is that the German jets
were all rushed into production, and nearly killed as many German airmen as
Allied, while the Meteor and Vampire were brought into use normally, and had
long successful service careers and development.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 06:44:27 -0400, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
>> two Arado Blitzs
>
> Make that four. Two of them went to the navy.
>
> It seems they almost never flew the Blitz. The tires were so bad they
> blew at inopportune moments.
>
> The other continual problem with all the German war trophies was the
> brakes. One pilot wrecked an Me-262 at Philadelphia? when he came in a
> bit hot, landed long, and couldn't brake to a stop before running off
> the end into the ditch.
>
> One of the things the Americans loved about the 262 was its modular
> construction. Most bad landings could be salvaged by bringing in a new
> nose or wing. (The front landing gear was weak, evidently, and they
> collapsed a couple of them.) The Philadelphia? (it was in PA anyhow)
> crash couldn't be salvaged, however.

Dan, you might want to check out the Defence Technical Information
Center site at:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/

Documant ADA800524.PDF is the final report of the flight evaluation of
Me 262s conducted by the USAAF Air Technical Intelligence Branch.

Some of the high points: 2 aircraft tested (T-2-711 and T-2-4012)
711 flew 12 flights for a total of 10 Hrs 40 Min, 4012 made 8 flights
for 4 Hrs 40 Min. Five engine changes were required for 711, and four
on 4012. A double engine failure resulted in the loss of 711 (Sp, I
guess, you _could_ make a case for 7 engine changes being required),
with the pilot bailing out successfully. Testing was halted on 4012
after 2 single-engine landings due to engine failure in flight.
It was determined that the benefits of further testing did not justify
the risks. (And they were running out of engines.) I quoted the
comparative handling characteristics and performance with the F-80A
last night. The systems abard teh aircraft were considered generally
satisfactory, with the exception of dismal brakes.

Note that they felt no need to conduct specific single-engine testing
- they ended up with plenty of single-engine flight time anyway.

And yes, the engine failure rate was a tad high. This was due in
large part to teh USAAF not recovering the engine logs with the
engines. (They tended to get lost in the Surrender Shuffle or
detroyed) This meant they had no way of knowing how close a
particular engine was to being close to a critical point in its
lifetime.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Eunometic]

(Tom Cervo) wrote in message >...
> >It seems they almost never flew the Blitz. The tires were so bad they
> >blew at inopportune moments.

The Germans had synthetic rubber but it needed a small admixture of
natural rubber to become good quality. This the allies cut of from
the Germans.

One RAF ace of French background Clostermann describes the desperate
and sacrificial attacks the allies made on the 33 knot fast merchant
ship (munster I think) right at the end of the war becuase it had a
load of natural rubber form the far east that might have re-energised
the araments industry.


> >The other continual problem with all the German war trophies was the
> >brakes. One pilot wrecked an Me-262 at Philadelphia? when he came in a
> >bit hot, landed long, and couldn't brake to a stop before running off
> >the end into the ditch.

Poor brakes was also a problem of all German late war aircraft.
Another material shortage I suspect.

>
> One of the points of contrast that Brits like to draw is that the German jets
> were all rushed into production, and nearly killed as many German airmen as
> Allied, while the Meteor and Vampire were brought into use normally, and had
> long successful service careers and development.

It wasn't just the rushing into service it was the war situation. The
engines worked in Reichlin test but when mass produced by unskilled
labour with inferior and substituted materials they just didn't work.

For instance something like 30% of accidents were related to nose
wheel collapses. This wasn't the designe but simply the low grade of
steel which was substituted.

[Cub Driver]

On 12 Aug 2004 21:51:20 -0700, (Eunometic)
wrote:

>For instance something like 30% of accidents were related to nose
>wheel collapses. This wasn't the designe but simply the low grade of
>steel which was substituted.

At least one of the Operation Lusty pilots got bitten by a nosewheel
collapse.

Interesting, some of the planes (not a 262, I don't think) were
booby-trapped. One had an explosive charge in the wing which was set
to go off when the plane took off. A wire was defective, and it wasn't
until the plane was being disassembled in the U.S. after a successful
life as a demonstrator that the explosive charge went off, destroying
the wing and its potential as a museum piece. Since the plane had been
in service with the Luftwaffe, there was speculation that one of
Germany's "guest workers" had planted the charge at the factory.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com