No Jets
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
bard32
Banned
Turboprop is actually a turbojet plus propellers. So it's actually harder to make than a conventional jet engine.
Here's some of the Soviet experiments you're talking about.
Bereznyakov-Isaev BI-1. A rocket fighter that predates the Me-163
BI-6, a BI-1 variant with two plusejets on the wingtips in addition to the main rocket.
The best example of a turboprop fighter was the Consolidated Vultee XP-81.
There were two prototypes built but they were so poorly designed they were
never used in the war. They were tested in 1947 and found lacking.
bard32
Banned
Well,
this is New York in 1973.
Airship over the Atlantic (1965 circa).
USAF fighter Mustang P-58 (1966 circa).
SAC B-50 Flying Wing (1964 circa).
Very good. However, the flying wings, like those designed by Reimar and Walter Horten and Glen Northrop, were highly impractical, dangerous, and unstable. The Northrop XB-49 was a prototype for a flying wing bomber similar to the B-2. The test pilot was told by another test pilot NOT to stall it
out because it couldn't recover from a stall. However, the Air Force wanted to see how it performed in a stall. So it ordered a stall test. The test pilot of
the second XB-49 put in a stall and it stalled out and crashed killing the test
pilot. This was at Muroc, later Vandenberg Air Force Base, where the sound barrier had been broken by Chuck Yeager.
bard32
Banned
I heard it was 1928. The first American jet, the Bell XP-59 Airacomet, flew in
1942 at Muroc, now Vandenberg.
Another engine type which didn't get much of a run outside Britain was sleeve valve engines. The Napier Sabre was finally tamed in about 1944 and could easily give 3000hp, and the Bristol Centaurus did about 2600hp in the Sea Fury. If these engines were utilised for longer, and perhaps mated with turbochargers, then compact and very powerful piston engines would be possible since the sleeve valve configuration has a lot of positives for aircraft engines.
So they could reasonably have got more powerful? Interesting.
What kind of engines did/does the Soviet 'Bear' bomber have? urboprops, or some sort of souped-up piston? Just out of interest. I'm still interested in this idea of hybrid propeller / rocket high altitude interceptors...
A little more, but sleeve valves have their own problems, which is why we don't have sleeve valve car engines today. By the end of WWII the most powerful piston engines were turbo-compound engines. One of the most sophisticated was the Napier Nomad. These were more efficient than jet engines, but incredibly unreliable.
Bears were jet powered. Its turboprops were the most advanced of its day.
That Napier Nomad, and frankly all highly supercharged aircraft engines, would show aircraft engine designers the way to gas turbine engines.
However, I would like to see how the sleeve valve competed against the poppet valve in powerful and compact military aircraft situations in the absence of the jet. After all the Centaurus had 20% more power than the Twin Wasp, with only about 12% more displacement. The water-cooled, sleeve valve Sabre produced 50% more power than the Twin Wasp with 20% LESS displacement.
However, I would like to see how the sleeve valve competed against the poppet valve in powerful and compact military aircraft situations in the absence of the jet. After all the Centaurus had 20% more power than the Twin Wasp, with only about 12% more displacement. The water-cooled, sleeve valve Sabre produced 50% more power than the Twin Wasp with 20% LESS displacement.
The other thing to look at - is what effect would it have on passenger air travel?
The Lockheed Super Constellation used piston engines (or were there turbo-props). Yet how much bigger could airliners get, with just pistons? Would air travel be as 'cheap' as it is now? It wouldn't be as fast - so far off places wouldn't be so accessible.
The other option, is that flying boat air travel may have lasted longer. It allows a longer take-off run - meaning a heavier load and/or lower power/weight ratio.
The Lockheed Super Constellation used piston engines (or were there turbo-props). Yet how much bigger could airliners get, with just pistons? Would air travel be as 'cheap' as it is now? It wouldn't be as fast - so far off places wouldn't be so accessible.
The other option, is that flying boat air travel may have lasted longer. It allows a longer take-off run - meaning a heavier load and/or lower power/weight ratio.
Jet Technology
The key to practical jet engines was the Kroll process for extracting titanium metal in 1946. Without titanium, jet engines just did not hold up. My guess is that rocket technology would also lag. We would be using propeller driven planes and very likely would not be involved in space travel.
The jet could easily have been delayed with a POD of delaying the supply of titanium.
The key to practical jet engines was the Kroll process for extracting titanium metal in 1946. Without titanium, jet engines just did not hold up. My guess is that rocket technology would also lag. We would be using propeller driven planes and very likely would not be involved in space travel.
The jet could easily have been delayed with a POD of delaying the supply of titanium.
in History the Jet engine was almost killt by politic
1940 USA
Lookheed Aircraft designer Kelly Johnson proposed a Jet fighter the L-133
with 2 x Lockheed L1000 J37 axial-flow turbojets
but USA Army Force dint' understand wat Johnson had made
drop L-133 as Science Fiction and demand a long range propeller Fighter
Kelly build the P-38
1928 UK
Frank Whittle had to submitted his ideas for a turbo-jet to his superiors.
the first Whittle engine running in April 1937. end almost in disaster.
wat if engine explode and kill Whittle or money of project are cut because of disaster ?
1935 German
Hans von Ohain started work on a similar design like Whittle
Ohain was then introduced to Ernst Heinkel of Heinkel Flugzeug werke
Heinkel help Ohain wit money and material.
wat if Ohain and Heinkel never met ?
or Heinrich Göring found the Idea of Jet-engine stupid ?
1940 USA
Lookheed Aircraft designer Kelly Johnson proposed a Jet fighter the L-133
with 2 x Lockheed L1000 J37 axial-flow turbojets
but USA Army Force dint' understand wat Johnson had made
drop L-133 as Science Fiction and demand a long range propeller Fighter
Kelly build the P-38
1928 UK
Frank Whittle had to submitted his ideas for a turbo-jet to his superiors.
the first Whittle engine running in April 1937. end almost in disaster.
wat if engine explode and kill Whittle or money of project are cut because of disaster ?
1935 German
Hans von Ohain started work on a similar design like Whittle
Ohain was then introduced to Ernst Heinkel of Heinkel Flugzeug werke
Heinkel help Ohain wit money and material.
wat if Ohain and Heinkel never met ?
or Heinrich Göring found the Idea of Jet-engine stupid ?
CanadianGoose
Banned
In USSR Arkhip Lyulka worked on the same idea since mid-1930. He built working prototypes pre-1944 independently of Germans and everybody else. I guess that tells us that jet engine's idea was kinda sorta hanging in the air and working engines had to appear by 1955 the latest. And without titanium for turbojets we can still have Pulsejects, which are even lower maintenance, although they are noisy as hell (I'm sure this defect can be alleviated to a dregree by advanced engineering, IOTL there was not need for that due to turbojet's coming).
I personally wouldn't mind a "no jets" world. I always loved propeller planes more than jets. Besides, propeller planes are a bit more eco-friendly, because they don't need to consume so much oxygen, so they could fly... On the other hand - air transport would be a lot more slower in this kind of alternate world. It would maybe result in the afforementioned return of big commercial zeppelins... or even passenger ocean liner ships not declining in popularity and economical effectivity as they did after OTL WWII...
Besides... I love Crimson Skies to death !
Besides... I love Crimson Skies to death !
Last edited:
As it happens I went to an air museum yesterday and they had sleeve valve radial, turbo-compound engines as well as RR Derwent, RR Nene and probably best of all a Junkers Jumo 004. The centrifugal flow Derwent and Nene compressors looking like nothing if not the blower for a radial engine. The casing which 'catches' the compressed air and directs it into the flame cans is virtually identical to the manifold for a 'typical' blown radial. I knew this abstractly but had never looked at these engines with this in mind. So I'm thinking the jet engine is inevitable from possibly WW1 or the Scnieder trophy races, and all the ground breaking theory had occured by 1930. In fact, from my reading I think that jets should have been in service by 1942 or so, and it was bloody-mindedness which held them back.
Not just that. Did you know, that the Versailles treaty restricted the production of more sofisticated planes - especially fighters - for the military of many European countries ? That's why typical WWII-era monoplanes started apearring on a more grander scale only after a few months of the war had already past. It's possible, that the British sacrificed Czechoslovakia and other central European countries to the Nazis just because of this concern - the Spitfires and Hurricanes weren't fully tested in 1938... The Brits probably didn't want to risk a much more earlier full-scale aerial war with Germany over the English Channel and the Atlantic coast. They would have to rely on weaker De Havilland trainer and patrol biplanes... against Bf 109s... Not a very pleasant thought, is it ?
Last edited:
Another funny thing is, that while Frank Whittle invented the jet engine, the British goverment simply did not believe him !
Meanwhile, the German jet programme gained quite a big lead over the British one... The only reassuring thing about the whole matter is the fact, that both the Luftwaffe and RAF only started using the Messerschmit Schwalbe and the Gloster Meteor in the last few months of the war. If there would be more operational jet models three of four years earlier... Europe would have experienced a much more dreadful version of WWII aviation warfare. Just imagine it - maybe even jet bombers ! Another similiar case would be helicopters... I dare not even think of it... I'm really happy enough with OTL. BTW, if you're a combat flight simulator buff, try out one of the official expansion packs for IL-2 Sturmovik, titled "1946". An alternate history scenario with WWII prolonged by roughly a year... Some of the never used experimental aircraft shown there REALLY KICK ASS...
and send a chill down your spine... Here's the trailer : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cklXJA4HcQ
Tallwingedgoat also put some screenshots from the game earlier in the thread.
Last edited:
Assuming a POD is found for this TL to happen I would see piston engined machines all reaching their theoretical maximum speed, which is governed by the speed of a propeller's tip. The fastest pylon racers now have Mustangs, Corsairs and Sea Furys capable of way over 500mph with Merlin, Wasp and Centaurus engines pushing out more than double their original output.
Under operational pressures virtually all aircraft would soon have almost the same top speed. Also with the refinement of the engines the cruising speeds would be much the same as the top speed in most cases. The differences would come in climb rate, handling characteristics and fuel consumption.
PS I forgot to mention the Grumman Bearcat among the pylon racers.
Under operational pressures virtually all aircraft would soon have almost the same top speed. Also with the refinement of the engines the cruising speeds would be much the same as the top speed in most cases. The differences would come in climb rate, handling characteristics and fuel consumption.
PS I forgot to mention the Grumman Bearcat among the pylon racers.
Last edited:
Hendryk
Banned
This one's an interesting concept. Ramjets need a minimum speed of 200 km/h to kick in, which a plane could reach with rocket propulsion. No propeller necessary.
Perhaps that's the path that would have been followed if turbojets had never been developed. The ramjet is a technologically simple concept that was thought up as early as 1908, and applied research into it began in 1935. (See my WI Solid State Propulsion).
With the 5,000hp piston engines they would be cruising at 450mph. That's not a lot less than the 5-600mph of the jets today.