Early Jet Fighter development

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by lwd » Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:20 pm

Or when engines failed in the same circumstances. Note what it says at: http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html
Losing an engine was very dangerous, since the Me-262 could barely stay in the air on one engine. If an engine was lost below 290 KPH (180 MPH), the aircraft would usually be lost as well. The engines were also not very reliable, being prone to flameouts and burnouts. ...
The Me-262 was highly vulnerable on takeoff and landing since the Jumo engines took a long time to throttle up; since the engines tended to set asphault runways on fire, the Me-262 was restricted to operations at airfields with concrete runways, which were more easily targeted by the Allies than dispersed dirt airfields.
Although to be fair http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-h ... walbe.html states
With one engine out, the Me 262 still flew well, with speeds of 450–500 km/h (280-310 mph), but pilots were warned never to fly slower than 300 km/h (190 mph) on one engine, as the asymmetrical thrust would cause serious problems.
That sounds like it would make landing very interesting though.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7528
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by RF » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:52 am

Reading the latter article poses the obvious question of how WW2 would have developed if the German Air Ministry had got its act together and had the construction started and pilots trained a year earlier than they were.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by Kyler » Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:38 pm

Also it is important to remember one of the largest reasons for delays in the Me 262 program, was Hitlers insistence the aircraft be developed as a fighter-bomber rather than just a fighter over protests from Galland and many of others in the Luftwaffe.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7528
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by RF » Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:51 pm

This point about delay has been challenged and debated eleswhere, with claims that Hitler was not the main reason for the delay in full deployment. The truth probably is that a multitude of reasons held its development up, Hitler or no Hitlerian interference......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by lwd » Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:48 pm

Indeed much of the information here points to the engines being the main delay. That raises the question if the engines had reached the state they did in 44 in 42 and everything else was ready would the Me-262 have been fielded? Or would they waited for yet more improvements as at least some of the engineers wanted and as the problems they experianced suggest?

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7528
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by RF » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:21 am

Logically it should have been fielded, given the increasing weight of bombing raids on Germany.

Had deployment been made on a substantial scale in early 1943 it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if some had been deployed in Sicily with respect to the war in the Med and in Tunisia.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by lwd » Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:01 pm

RF wrote:Logically it should have been fielded, given the increasing weight of bombing raids on Germany.
....
I'm not so sure. If the engine has a factory specified overhaul period of only 30 hours and planes are experiancing numerous failures prior to that time is it really ready for fielding? Note that some of the sources above indicate that the engineers responsible for developing it considered produciton premature as it was.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by Kyler » Thu Sep 09, 2010 3:36 pm

lwd wrote:
RF wrote:Logically it should have been fielded, given the increasing weight of bombing raids on Germany.
....
I'm not so sure. If the engine has a factory specified overhaul period of only 30 hours and planes are experiancing numerous failures prior to that time is it really ready for fielding? Note that some of the sources above indicate that the engineers responsible for developing it considered produciton premature as it was.
The eventual goal was 100 hours before an overhaul, early production Jumo's had a goal of 50 hours of life in reality its was only about 30 hours between overhauls.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7528
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by RF » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:52 pm

lwd wrote: I'm not so sure. If the engine has a factory specified overhaul period of only 30 hours and planes are experiancing numerous failures prior to that time is it really ready for fielding? Note that some of the sources above indicate that the engineers responsible for developing it considered produciton premature as it was.
This is a good question, because the increasingly desparate position Germany was in strategically would have forced its introduction to combat operations regardless of the engineers recommendations. The engineers and pilots pick up the pieces out of the ''sticky'' position they would find themselves in.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Early Jet Fighter development

Post by lwd » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:22 pm

Kyler wrote:
lwd wrote:
RF wrote:Logically it should have been fielded, given the increasing weight of bombing raids on Germany.
....
I'm not so sure. If the engine has a factory specified overhaul period of only 30 hours and planes are experiancing numerous failures prior to that time is it really ready for fielding? Note that some of the sources above indicate that the engineers responsible for developing it considered produciton premature as it was.
The eventual goal was 100 hours before an overhaul, early production Jumo's had a goal of 50 hours of life in reality its was only about 30 hours between overhauls.
They apparently got close to that in the Arado. As has been noted it seems to have been very sensative to abrupt or repeated throttle adjustements.

Post Reply