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.
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.
In 1945 the team from the ATAR laboratory plus some BMW and Junkers engineers, were engaged by the French SNECMA research bureau, with the objective to built a new reliable and performing axial flow turbojet. 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.
The ATAR project took 6 years to produce the first acceptable axial turbojet (ATAR 101 B1), but was only produce in 1953. So 8 years research and developments by the French using the German jet engines as the base. It was installed on the first French jet fighter, the Dassault Ouragan.
In 1945 some German designed turbo jets made with quality steel were made and tested by the French. They ran for 25 hours instead 10 hours to the poor steel the Germans used. Not much better. The German axial design failed because of heavy design faults. The centrifugal compressor used by the first British Meteor was fine and much more reliable, but unable to reach high compression ratios. This limited performances. Centrifugal compressors were use up to the 1960s.
Centrifugal compressors were used in turboprops. Between a turbo jet and a turboprop, the only difference is the turbine, not the compressor. The last centrifugal compressor jet engine still in service on a handful of old commercial aircraft like the Fokker 27, is the RR Dart turboprop. A very reliable engine made in 27 versions, but with high fuel consumption. The turbo jet engine that was the longest produced, was the Rolls Royce Dart Turboprop - a comparable design as a turbojet like the RR Nene. This rugged engine was and produced from 1946 up to 1987.
The French lost a lot of time because the German jets had a poor efficiency and some concept fails. Essentially in the combustion chambers and fresh air circulation to reduce the external temperature of the engine. The BMW jet was know for overheat problems which precluded fuselage installation.
The question at the end of WW2 was what is the most efficient way to produce jet fighters. The answer is clearly no to adopting the German design of engine and fuselage. The build costs for a jet engine were much higher than a piston engine, and the consumption was near 3x. The centrifugal compressor the British adopted in some planes was the best choice with 1944-45 technology, more compression pressure was not an advantage when the hot turbine was unable to resist higher temperatures. And the German turbojets had big overheat problems as the engine would not work in an enclosed fuselage for single engined fighters. This defect was immediately noted by the French on the 1946 "SO 6000 Triton" prototype, and from the Soviets on the 1946 Mig 9. The Soviets quickly replaced the BMW 004B2 by the RR Nene which worked without problems. The RR Nene was copied to the last nut by the USSR and put in the Mig 15 and used effectively in the Korean war. About 10 years ago the USSR eventually paid royalties to RR.
The Germans were the only country that had jets in military service at the time you are referring to so what exactly is your point?
The comment about poor steel quality makes no sense, they had materiel shortages and no reserves of strategic materials of any consequence. You are confusing the realities of design vs the ability to manufacture high quality equipment because of a lack of materials.
I'm trying to figure out just what point you are trying to make.
Aren't you being uncharitable to attempt to dismiss the well-worked opening comment with your less-well made effort (if that's no too-grand a word for it)? Judging by what little I know, his observations are sound; and yours abound with empty spaces. The earliest German (pre-war) jet-planes needed their engine rebuilt so frequently that some authorities refuse to accept them as such. And German design wasn't as grand as some would have us believe. The Tiger tank, for instance, was too clever for its crew and over-burdensome on its maintenance-workers, and some of the later Nazi jets would disintegrate on take-off because their wings were joined-together with inferior (German) glue. And in the years immediately after WWII, `made in Germany´ was held, even by the Germans, Austrians &c, to be a sign of shoddiness. Finally, it may interest you to know that the Germans, who appear to rely too-much on learning algorithms, are nowhere near as proficient at mathematics as they are taken to be. But, to be fair to them, I'd say that they are impressively-well organised, appreciative of excellent music, good at playing soccer, the best at making beer, endowed with a first-class sense of humour, &c, etc. And do bear in-mind that Mack-The-Knife originated as Captain Macheath in John Gay's (British) The Beggar's Opera
The British had the Gloster Meteor in squadron strength and on the continent before the end of the war, they were very good at intercepting the V-1 buzz bombs, it also saw service in Korea and is still earning it's keep as a ejection seat test aircraft for Martin Baker. The US had 2 jet fighters flying by the end of the way, the Bell P-59 was hampered by its low thrust engines, and the Lockheed P-80 Shooting star, a plane that saw combat in Korea and evolved into the T-33 Thunderbird, a plane that remained in service until the 90s.
The 262 was vastly superior to both the Meteor and T-33 in both speed and maneuverability, it was hampered by its engines because of a low service life of 25 hrs and cannons because of low rate of fire.
The Germans were the only country that had jets in military service at the time you are referring to so what exactly is your point?
The British and German jets entered service at the same time. One worked properly and one never. There is a myth that the Germans were way ahead when the opposite is true.
The British had the Gloster Meteor in squadron strength and on the continent before the end of the war, they were very good at intercepting the V-1 buzz bombs, it also saw service in Korea and is still earning it's keep as a ejection seat test aircraft for Martin Baker. The US had 2 jet fighters flying by the end of the way, the Bell P-59 was hampered by its low thrust engines, and the Lockheed P-80 Shooting star, a plane that saw combat in Korea and evolved into the T-33 Thunderbird, a plane that remained in service until the 90s.
The 262 was vastly superior to both the Meteor and T-33 in both speed and maneuverability, it was hampered by its engines because of a low service life of 25 hrs and cannons because of low rate of fire.
10 hrs not 25. The French got 25 using superior metals.
The Germans were the only country that had jets in military service at the time you are referring to so what exactly is your point?
....
I'm trying to figure out just what point you are trying to make.
The same point he keeps trying to make on the History forum - Britain is vastly superior to every other country in the world, in every imaginable respect, and everyone else sucks. It'll be entertaining if some people who are really knowledgeable about early jet aircraft decide to engage him on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
The British and German jets entered service at the same time. One worked properly and one never. There is a myth that the Germans were way ahead when the opposite is true.
"One worked properly and one never?" That's absurd. Both programs had their strengths and their weaknesses, and neither was significantly better than the other. But if you insist in claiming that one worked properly and the other didn't, I'd say that the one which shot down hundreds of enemy planes with a kill ratio in air-to-air combat somewhere between 6:1 and 10:1 arguably performed more "properly" than the one that never fought a single air-to-air engagement against an enemy plane. Want to guess which one was which?
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.
