Hey, Germany Invented It... Face It

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...

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

In article ,
Peter Stickney wrote:
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...

Yep - though IIRC the Metrovick engine was the first allied axial-
flow turbine to fly (what's rather startling is that within
a few months M-V had developed it into a *turbofan* - the F3 -
although that never flew)

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.

Agreed, seconded..
Once they did accept that something that simple could work, all marks
to the ministry (and to the allies in general) for deciding that a
slightly-less-than-ideal engine which could be built *right now*
and made reliable *real soon now* was prefereable to an obstensibly
better design which wasn't going to work well any time in the near
future (and you could always push the axial flow designs along while
productionising the centrifugal-flow engines)

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?

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.

Surely the Avon must have been in early development by then as well,
though it didn't work very well until Hooker got put in charge of it.

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.

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.

*lovely*. Just what you want.

--
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)

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

In article ,
Guy Alcala wrote:
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:
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.

of course - the 17 used the Nene clone as well. I'd forgotten that.
For an engine that the Air Ministry thought was hopelessly outdated
in 194grumble, the Nene didn't do half badly..

--
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)

(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.

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.




Yeah its rather silly and intellectually lazy, to assume we, or anyone else,
would have never thought of a high altitude recon aircraft, and its only
because the germans were working on a project like that, that we have the U-2.

But then considering how we have to hear here about how the Germans flew first,
how they went supersonic first, how it must have been some fluke that Germany
was defeated, how they have had super secret UFOs, etc etc..

There is being proud of your heritage and ancestry, and then there is just
being plain delusional too.





Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"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

From: "Pete"


"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

What our Nazi friend seems to be forgetting is during the smae period of time
the U.S. had a flying disc prototype fighter nicknamed the "Flying Flapjack."

He also shows some drawings and photograps of ring shaped vehicles on the
ground, never in flight. In the late 1800s (?) Alexander Graham Bell had
biplane ring shaped "kite" that actually flew. I saw a picture of it and
description pf when, where and how it flew back in the late 1960s. If memory
serves it was about 15 feet across. Granted it wasn't an airplane, but it does
prove he had some idea of such a thing long before the Nazis did.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired