It seems to me that not having a single-engined jet fighter in developmet by same time as the He-280/Me-262 was a major mistake by Germans.
Alternative to the ME-262
- Thread starter Matt jones
- Start date
It seems to me that not having a single-engined jet fighter in developmet by same time as the He-280/Me-262 was a major mistake by Germans.
At work.
Unable to post links.
First, I'm pretty sure most of the "Jet engines expensive/hot" talk is wrong.
The Germans had at an early stage gone for 'Through flow' turbine development unlike Whittle's more twisted 'Axial flow' ideas. The Germans had, at an earlier stage, begun developing hollow/folded turbine blades both as a way to increase production as well as allow for cooling.
The fact that late war disruption to road/rail infrastructure..... not to mention rolling stock and vehicles are as much to blame for engines not getting to machines as much as production.
Will try to find links when I can about such.
As for possible 'Alternates'? Build both the Lippitch motorized version of the 163 air frame (Me 334?) Along side the Bv P 208.03
One machine of wood the other sheet metal, both using 'older' series production engines while providing performance as good as or better than 109. Giving more air frames for more pilots for more flight time for more air cover for more experience.
You also have the Argus engined Skoda Kauba V4 for pilot training/possible light ground attack?
I also believe Dornier had been working on the principles that would gel into the 335 for quite a while and, again, it was the lack of enthusiasm from the Higher ups which stagnated development and saw history develop as it did. Will try and find the details of the extension shaft flying experimental vehicle Dornier built early on to demonstrate point.
As for jets? Don't let Willy near them! Look to Fw and such for their ideas.
The Ta 153(?) seemed to have great potential as well as simplicity, ruggedness etc. Just give them more time to work out the instability problems (Took Kurt into the 50's in Argentina I seem to remember. Though admittedly with far less budget, skilled techs and impetuous. )
As for 'Alternate-alternate'? Can't go past Lippisch P13a. Coal powered ramjet engined Mach 2 interceptor!
Unable to post links.
First, I'm pretty sure most of the "Jet engines expensive/hot" talk is wrong.
The Germans had at an early stage gone for 'Through flow' turbine development unlike Whittle's more twisted 'Axial flow' ideas. The Germans had, at an earlier stage, begun developing hollow/folded turbine blades both as a way to increase production as well as allow for cooling.
The fact that late war disruption to road/rail infrastructure..... not to mention rolling stock and vehicles are as much to blame for engines not getting to machines as much as production.
Will try to find links when I can about such.
As for possible 'Alternates'? Build both the Lippitch motorized version of the 163 air frame (Me 334?) Along side the Bv P 208.03
One machine of wood the other sheet metal, both using 'older' series production engines while providing performance as good as or better than 109. Giving more air frames for more pilots for more flight time for more air cover for more experience.
You also have the Argus engined Skoda Kauba V4 for pilot training/possible light ground attack?
I also believe Dornier had been working on the principles that would gel into the 335 for quite a while and, again, it was the lack of enthusiasm from the Higher ups which stagnated development and saw history develop as it did. Will try and find the details of the extension shaft flying experimental vehicle Dornier built early on to demonstrate point.
As for jets? Don't let Willy near them! Look to Fw and such for their ideas.
The Ta 153(?) seemed to have great potential as well as simplicity, ruggedness etc. Just give them more time to work out the instability problems (Took Kurt into the 50's in Argentina I seem to remember. Though admittedly with far less budget, skilled techs and impetuous. )
As for 'Alternate-alternate'? Can't go past Lippisch P13a. Coal powered ramjet engined Mach 2 interceptor!
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
Yes the Germans had to come up with innovative cooling methods because they lacked heat resistant metals. The blades were hollow and internally air cooled, but I think that also had to do with blade vibration issues they were having.
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/junkers-jumo-004-b4-turbojet-engine
https://books.google.com/books?id=W...dzAT#v=onepage&q=jumo 004 air cooling&f=false
It was also absurdly cheap compared to piston engines and much easier to make; it took about 300 man hours, not even using skilled labor (compare that to the nearly 3000 needed for a BMW 801), while the material cost was a fraction of DB605 in terms of strategic metals like chrome.
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/materials-needed-to-construct-the-junkers-jumo-004.43678/
HELL, do you know how fast this sweety tweety was brought up in the air ?
- 08.Sept.1944 the requirements were published
- 06.December 1644 maiden flight of the prototyp
69 days from scratch to flight !
I would assume that with such a short development some "sins" are allowed. Still a great achievement IMO.
And that it wasn't just "anything" : the allied pilots, who flew it after the war LIKED IT AS IT WAS ! Well, yes they were "aces" and they well mentioned, that it needed an experienced and esp. careful at the throttle pilot.
Could it have at least 1/2 year more time ...
There were already follow ups with i.e. larger wings and other improvements to ease up the handling ready planned.
But ... all too late.
Erhm ... the story is a bit more ... complex.
Turbines as airplane engines weren't rendered feasable due to weight and size ... by the !traditional' turbine makers, who built industrial turbines. There were some works done by the 'well known' arero engine companies, but there only on a small scale. These companies were more 'tarditionally' focused :
just improved whats known (piston engines) in small steps, no need for something 'new' (sonds familiar to todays manufactures ...)
Only when Heinkel caught Oheim things really got a go. But unforunatly : Heinkel wasn't really liked by the Luftwaffe Nazis.
Only after Heinkel/Oheim proved their concepts (on a test-bed scale) some half hearted attempts were started/given to the 'well-known' engine companies (Junkers, BMW), who started development rather reluctantly (for reasons mentioned above).
Also the funding was
- low
- and spread between several parties
British test pilot Eric Brown who flew captured Me-262, Arado-234, Me-163 and the He-162 said the He-162 was his favorite of the German jets and the only real problem with it was the tail section, in a tight turn the tail could break off but he added that high speed jet aircraft didn't need to make tight turns in combat like prop planes did.
The He-162 was just a 5 month old baby when it entered service, further development would have produced a fine aircraft IMO.
According to the new Osprey Book on Volksjager Units the few He-162's that were produced had a LOT of quality control problems, as they were built by slave labor this really can't be avoided. And it was a very unforgiving aircraft, experienced pilots had trouble with it. I can't see putting "glider-trained" Hitler Youth in them and having anyone survive.
I think the He-162 could be better but there just wasn't time to do anything with the design. And I don't see any way to make it usable by poorly-trained pilots...
Horribly unreliable and whilst a hot ship that was normally due to the rear engine spontaneously combusting.This might have been a good alternative.
Doesn't matter, there's someone on this board - I forget the name - who says that contact fuses for AA shells were far better than proximity fuses anyway. I'm sure they'll be along soon to explain.
Deleted member 1487
Not sure if you're referring to me...but I never argued that. What I did say was that a proximity fuse wasn't as helpful as you think for striking high altitude bomber formation, as the time to target and accuracy of the gunlaying radar and computers were more important. Proximity fuses were more effective than contact fuses, but both benefited from being able to fire rapidly without having to pause to carefully set a mechanical timed fuse or having an expensive, complicated automatic fuse setter. The problem with a VT WW2 style fuse is that the US ones were jammable very easily, as the US found when they tested ECM, though an electro-static one wouldn't be...but would have potential other issues regarding weather (I think, that came up once in a discussion about them). Contact fuses were unjammable, but obviously were less effective than an unjammed VT fuse, however compared to mechanically timed fuses they were able to score more kills. That however came at the cost of no shrapnel damage on bomber formations, which was a major drawback of the contact fuse. It was either a kill or nothing. Plus when another poster on another forum actually got the US operations data about raids on the day that the contact fuse was combat trialed around Munich, the claimed shoot downs were less than claimed by the Luftwaffe...by that I mean they counted all shoot downs in Bavaria that day as from the raid where the contact fuse was used, which in fact the US listed shoot downs for all it's bombing missions that day in Bavaria that added up to the kill total claimed for the contact fuse. IIRC is was 4 shoot downs over Munich, 13 total over Bavaria from all raids. Still even with adjusting the success downwards the contact fuse was 3 times more effective at achieving a shoot down of an aircraft in bomber formation than the average for mechanically timed fuses in box barrages, but again with the negative that it meant no shrapnel damage for aircraft that weren't hit; in that discussion we determined that on the day in question where the trial happened, more damage was done to other raids if you add up the shoot downs and damaged aircraft than in the one with just contact fuses.
When you make that adjustment for the reduced effectiveness of the contact fuse, the biggest improvement in FLAK shoot downs actually came from improved radar guidance systems like the Kulmbach microwave gunnery radar, as it gave much more precise information to gunlaying computers about flight data and was not impacted by Window/Chaff.
Unlike individual kamikazes for which proximity fuses were a must as you needed a 100% kill ratio, the huge allied bomber boxes were relatively easy to track and their altitude determined. Thus fuses needed to be set for that altitude and the gun trained to allow it to fire into the box. Kinda hard to miss that many targets, but you were never going to take all of them down either...
I don't think a P51 Mustang would be usable by poorly trained pilots but I take your point about the quality control used in production of the He-162, my point was that all things considered, for a five month old aircraft it was a pretty amazing airplane.
As others here have already stated with more resources and development, I think the Dornier Do-335 could have been an outstanding aircraft.
marathag
Banned
The Jumo 213E had bugs: various engine failures, running issues and supercharger and intercooler difficulties,esp. the third gear of the three-speed gearing shouldn't be used at all at one point.
The Jumo 213E-1, with improved transmission, was to be installed in production Ta-152Hs. Never built.
Overall, better off with the turbines
From drawing board to flight testing in five months DURING WARTIME CONDITIONS is quite amazing. One has to wonder, if the need had been seen earlier and there was time to get the design to maturity as well as actually produce enough of them...
(my bold)
Is the bolded part a proven truth, or urban myth?
IIRC none of these bugs were due to use of B4 instead of C3 fuel.
The problems with 3rd gear were presenting themselves via non-ability to use MW-50 when supercharger gearing was in the said 3rd gear, otherwise it worked - meaning 1300 HP at 30000 ft.
Agreed.
Not just that jets were available earlier than Jumo 213E, they did not needed propellers, reduction gears for the props, water-methanol and/or GM-1 injection, no cooling systems. Far less propeller-related compressibility problems. Installed weight of the Jumo 004 or BMW 003 was just a half (if even so) of what it would've been for the Jumo 213, DB 603 or BMW 801.
A trivial piece of pedantry but the 'huge allied bomber boxes' were US huge bomber boxes. RAF ones were a constant dribble going in the same direction at assorted but similar altitudes. A night time RAF bomber box would save the Luftwaffe the trouble of shooting them down.