Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

In article ,
Peter Stickney wrote:

snip

American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
turned out to be correct.

Could argue that - in Britain at least - we lost interest in the
centrifugal flow engine just a touch too early. There was very little
interest in the Nene, IIRC, which is why it was regarded as OK to
sell the design to Russia (while hanging on tight to the Sapphire
and Avon). Of course, the Nene worked very well in MiG15 (and also,
IIRC, in the Tunnen as well as a few other designs). In fact it must
have been the last centrifugal flow engine to power an aircraft in
combat - when did the Indian Sea Hawks go?

snip

Mid-'80s IIRC, but there were MiG-17/-17Fs (VK-1/1F, a Nene copy) )in
combat (Vietnam 1972, Oct. 73, plus probably smaller wars since that Vic
Flintham will no doubt list) after the Sea Hawks (Dec. 1971) last fired in
anger.

Guy

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Erich Adler" wrote in message
We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

Uh, no. You're thinking "Metropolitan-Vickers in 1943"

Or GE in 1941 (TG-100/T-31)
Or GE in 1944 (TG-180/J35)
Or Westinghouse in 1943 (X19/J30)
Or...

Maybe so, but the point here is that it was the US experts that asked
the Germans what they believed to be the future and why. The Germans
did explain that the axial-flow engine would prevail.
Using your explanation above it makes the US and Britain look foolish
since they continued with centrifugal engine production. If they had
knowledge of axial superiority and the materials, time, money, and
skill to build them then why not?

Axial compressors, and their potential benefits, were well known long
before with Whittle or von Ohain ran their engines. In fact, one of
the reasons that the RAF was so reluctant to find Whittles'
experiements was becasue the Air Minitry's tame Gas Turbine expert,
Griffith, was so enamoured of his own over-complicated, unsuccessful
axial complressor designs that he refused to believe that compressors
could, in fact, be that simple.

American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
turned out to be correct.

Thats BS. Had the Germans had the materials available that the Allies
did, more time, and no bombardment they could have proceeded with much
greater designs in both jets and rocket powerplants.

And at twice the power of anything the Germans ever achieved. The J33
and J35 both ran in early 1944, The Rolls Nene, developed as a
response to the J33, ran in late '44. Westinghouse was running the
J30, mentioned above, the J32 9.5" diameter missile engine, and the
J34, and Metrovick had the Beryl in production adn were working on the
Sapphire by the time anyone on the Allied side got to touch a German
engine.


Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
(intended for pacific operations).

Refer to earlier post, the DB 109-016 was tested in March 1945 at
28,652 lb thrust- the world's greatest jet engine of the time.

Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15

And why one Adolf Galland - who flew both - rated the Meteor as
a better fighter than the 262. It had *much* better engines.
I'll grant that he did say the 262 might have been better if it
had Derwents, but it would be interesting to try and mate the two.

Galland has a right to his opinion- all jet flyers do. There are those
today who would pick foreign aircraft to fly other than our own. But
then again Galland only flew the Me-262... he never flew a Vril-7 or
Haunebu disc, did he? What do you think his comments would have been
if he flew those craft?

An interesting noe in the report of U.S.A.A.F testing of war prize Me
262s at Freeman Field, Ohio, after the war is available on the Defence
Technical Information Center site:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/

One comment in the report was that they did no specific single-engine
testing - They got plenty of single-engine time due to engine failure.

Doesn't mean a thing. Of course they would experience the same problem
the Germans did because of the lack of stronger materials in the
engines. Had they removed the synthetics and weaker materials and
replaced them with what the Germans had wanted to use in the Jumo 004
then they would have gotten excellent results.
BTW, Wright's flight handbook for the Me-262 dated 1946 (an official
document) claims the Me-262 could do Mach 1 in a shallow dive. So who
cares about your engine flame-out comments?

Rob

Galland has a right to his opinion- all jet flyers do. There are those
today who would pick foreign aircraft to fly other than our own. But
then again Galland only flew the Me-262... he never flew a Vril-7 or
Haunebu disc, did he?

Yeah, as General in charge of all fighter aircraft, his clearance apparently
didn't reach "Ridiculous", to allow him to even hear about such craft.

What do you think his comments would have been
if he flew those craft?

"I felt as if the devil was pushing!"

They got plenty of single-engine time due to engine failure.

Doesn't mean a thing.

Had they removed the synthetics and weaker materials and
replaced them with what the Germans had wanted to use in the Jumo 004
then they would have gotten excellent results.

sooo, then it wouldnt have been a Jumo 004B, would it? It would have been an
American version that would have been, uhh, better than the German one.
Right...?


BTW, Wright's flight handbook for the Me-262 dated 1946 (an official
document) claims the Me-262 could do Mach 1 in a shallow dive. So who
cares about your engine flame-out comments?

Ever try to go Mach 1 in an aircraft that is unpowered? Hint: Jumo engine pod
designers had no concept of how to spike the shock wave as it entered the
engine. That means, once you get to your critical Mach #, the show is over.

Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

Refer to earlier post, the DB 109-016 was tested in March 1945 at
28,652 lb thrust- the world's greatest jet engine of the time.

Except for some mock up bits, the DB109-016 was never built or ran,
neither did any number of other fairly ambitious designs. But neither
did any number of Allied projects of the same period that were, in their
own way, just as advanced.
The German effort in such was driven by desperation, while the Allies
didn't have the same level of pressure, so could afford to be more
conservative, but certainly had the wherewithal to get advanced/exotic
if they had to.

That Germans were the first to connect some dots in some engineering
which deserves some appropriate historical footnote, but there simply
isn't anything special about the Germans for having done so. It is like
suggesting that Glenn Curtis was "better" than the Wrights for hinged
ailerons instead of wing warping, and that anyone who used ailerons
afterwards was some kind of thief/mental midget for adopting the idea.
Basic physics would have lead anyone to the same conclusion/solutions
for all kinds of stuff, WHEN is simply a matter of circumstance.

"robert arndt" wrote

Galland has a right to his opinion- all jet flyers do. There are those
today who would pick foreign aircraft to fly other than our own. But
then again Galland only flew the Me-262... he never flew a Vril-7 or
Haunebu disc, did he? What do you think his comments would have been
if he flew those craft?


His comments might have been "Ok..it flies, but not nearly as good as a
regular aircraft"

If disc planform aircraft are soooo good, where are they? 50-60 years later,
and there are zero flying discs in general use.

Somewhere between Gossamer Albatross and the 747, the P-51 and the F-22,
someone, somewhere would have reproduced the general concept. And if it
worked, they'd be using it. Hell...the German engineers that went to the US
and Russia would have said "Hey guys, try this! These things worked really
well for us."

Since to date we have seen none, it must be assumed that the disc was a
waystation on the way to actual functional aircraft. Much as the steam
engine was a waystation on the way to the IC engine in automobiles.
Something to be tried, and then tossed away as "well...it looked like a good
idea anyway".

Oh..I know where they are. The evil US government is monitoring *all*
heavier than air development, everywhere in the world. And supressing any
disc-based investigations. Or simply paying them off and keeping the
aircraft at Area 51. Along with the old German scientists' cadavers.

Pete

On 18 Feb 2004 00:20:03 -0000, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:


Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
(intended for pacific operations).


That was the SR1A I take it. How did it compare performance wise with the
meteor and vampire ? One wonders how say a 'conventional' version would
have performed over the skies of Korea.


greg


--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On 18 Feb 2004 00:20:03 -0000, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:


Yep. Metrovick had a very tasty axial-flow engine (the basis of
Armstrong-Siddeley and later Bristol-Siddeley engines to come)
flying in late 1943. Not a bad engine at all. And a fighter
powered by two of 'em was testing before the end of the war
(intended for pacific operations).


That was the SR1A I take it. How did it compare performance wise with the
meteor and vampire ? One wonders how say a 'conventional' version would
have performed over the skies of Korea.

Suprisingly fast, IIRC. 500+ mph rings a bell.
Aha:

"The S.R.A.1 had a normal fuel capacity of 425 Imp. gal., and jettisonable
fuel tanks could be carried under the wing inboard of the retractable
stabilising floats. Loaded weight was l6,255 lb., and empty weight was
11,262 lb. The third prototype attained a maximum speed of 516 mph., and
initial climb rate exceeded 4,000 ft/min. Dimensions we span, 46
ft.; length 50 ft.; height, 16 ft. 9 in.; gross wing area, 415 sq. ft."

(quote from "The JET AIRCRAFT of the World" by William Green (February
1956) - probably reliable enough)

Range was about 500 miles (~830 km) without external tanks. I can't find
time-to-height or ceiling figures.

Vampire F1 was good for about 520 mph, range comparible or a bit longer,
same gun armament (the usual four hispanos) but a lighter bomb load.

"Engine 3,100lb de havilland Goblin DGn.2
Wing span 40ft
Length 30ft 9ins
Maximum speed (Kts)
at height (ft) 540
20,000
Service ceiling (ft) -
Rate of climb (ft/min) 4,200
Range (miles) 730
Armament 4 x 20mm cannon in nose"

(from http://www.609.org.uk/vampire.htm)

climb rate a little faster, and I'd be suprised if it wasn't more agile
than the big SaRo.

Meat Box F1 (with Wellands) was only good for about 410 mph, but the
F3 which was the first main production type and was in pretty extensive
squadron service before VE day was a lot better. The developed version
- the F4 - came in just post-war but is probably the best comparison
to the SaRo and the Vampi
Engines : two Derwent V turbojets of 3495 lbs thrust
Max speed : 510 Kts (Mach 0.76) at sea level, 430 Kts (Mach 0.76) at
10.000 ft, 235 Kts (Mach 0.78) at 40.000 ft
Cruising speed : 400 Kts - 480 Kts, Landing speed : 90 Kts - 100 Kts
Service ceiling : 40.000 ft, Max ceiling : 44.500 ft
Range : 530 Nm (755 Nm with external tanks)
Empty weight : 9995 lbs, Max take off weight : 17000 lbs
Dimensions : Span of 37 ft 2 in, Length of 40 ft 11 in, Height of 13 ft
Armement : four 20mm cannon + two 1000 lbs bombs or 8 x rockets of 90 lbs
each
Users : Belgium, UK, Netherlands, Argentina

So 598 mph maximum. For its day the Meteor was a very fast machine (it
held the air speed record for a fair while) and for an early jet its
acceleration was good. Not agile except in the hands of someone like
the late Zura, however.

The SaRo wasn't a lot worse than the Vamp in performance and would
certainly have overmatched any piston-engined fighter, let alone
any other seaplane. It would almost certainly have been at a disadvantage
against a Meteor, and although there were ideas of re-activating the
project early in the Korean war it's hard to see what would have been
achieved, even with more powerful engines. I doubt if anyone would
have wanted to take it up against MiG15s (though it'd possibly be no
worse than doing the same in a Firefly)

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Erich Adler" wrote in message
m...
I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?

I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
military aviation.

We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
turned out to be correct.

Only due to the German lack of strategic materials for higher quality
jet construction. Nevertheless, they did remarkably well with
synthetic lubricants and materials to keep their jets flying. Their
latter axial designs were much greater than your postwar centrifugals
and one engine the DB 109-016 which was tested in March 1945 produced
28,652 lb thrust making it the world's most powerful jet at the time.
The Germans also invented the afterburner with the Jumo 004E at the
end of the war. Postwar, the Soviets made good use of other designs,
especially the German derived turboprops.

We could discuss the US
reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
postwar military aircraft and research aircraft. We could discuss the
various guns and missile systems copied by the US and Allies to be
applied to those military aircraft. We could talk about the German
invention of stealth that the US applied to both the U-2 and SR-71.
Lastly we could talk about the taboo discs and forms of propulsion
beyond the axial-flow Jumo 004B, which was way beyong US science of
the time and not even perfected until possibly the late 1980s or '90s.


Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15

Can't you read, he said the engines BEYOND the Jumo 004B- the disc
engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today... only the
Nazis seemed to have got that engine working in the '40s instead of
the '80s, '90s, 00's(?).

Rob

Keith

robert arndt wrote:


Can't you read, he said the engines BEYOND the Jumo 004B- the disc
engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today...


Sound like a _really_ radical development step from the 004 ;-).

Anyway, a sensible discussion of German WW2 technology should be
restricted to those devices, which actually _existed_. Again, could
you please come up with at least some sort of evidence? Other than
simply re-telling stories whose origin is either unknown or can be
traced to die-hard post-1945 nazis with about zero credibility? No?
Thought so.

You probably say it's all stored in top secret archives. If so, how do
you know? I doubt you have a security clearance ;-).

Andreas

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Erich Adler" wrote in message
m...
I see that no civil discussion can take place here despite the fact
that you "adults" claim to cherish military aviation. So why all the
fuss about German aircraft, jets or otherwise?

I live in America now but don't like the blatant arrogance I see
whenever history is talked about in regards to military aircraft.
Every American I have had discussions with usually end up in disaster
because the ignorant American can't get it through his thick skull
that they owe practically everything to Germany in the field of modern
military aviation.

We could discuss Allied centrifugal jets that lost out in the long
run. German engineers told them that in 1945.

American and US companies were already working on axial flow designs
before the end of the war. They knew very well that the centrifugal
design had a limited scope for development but they also knew
it would be easier to produce a reliable engine that way. This
turned out to be correct.

Only due to the German lack of strategic materials for higher quality
jet construction. Nevertheless, they did remarkably well with
synthetic lubricants and materials to keep their jets flying. Their
latter axial designs were much greater than your postwar centrifugals
and one engine the DB 109-016 which was tested in March 1945 produced
28,652 lb thrust making it the world's most powerful jet at the time.

Of course it never actually flew

The Germans also invented the afterburner with the Jumo 004E at the
end of the war. Postwar, the Soviets made good use of other designs,
especially the German derived turboprops.

Which used more fuel and produced less thrust than the Nene


We could discuss the US
reliance on German wind tunnel data to build a large variety of
postwar military aircraft and research aircraft. We could discuss the
various guns and missile systems copied by the US and Allies to be
applied to those military aircraft. We could talk about the German
invention of stealth that the US applied to both the U-2 and SR-71.
Lastly we could talk about the taboo discs and forms of propulsion
beyond the axial-flow Jumo 004B, which was way beyong US science of
the time and not even perfected until possibly the late 1980s or '90s.


Bull**** , the Jumo 004B was a typical first generation engine in terms
of performance with woeful reliability and had poorer performance
than the Derwent. This is of course why the Soviets used the
RR centrifugal engine in the Mig-15

Can't you read, he said the engines BEYOND the Jumo 004B- the disc
engines, which created rotating electromagnetic fields, very similar
to the suspected engines of the black craft flying today... only the
Nazis seemed to have got that engine working in the '40s instead of
the '80s, '90s, 00's(?).


There is of course no evidence that anything of the sort happened

Keith