So, let's talk jets.

[Heliopause]

(Pacific?)

 

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

Yes, the pilot would first start the Riedel starter motor via an electrical starter and let it run until up till 800 RPM. Than it would be coupled with the turbine with a clutch and the ignition for the jet engine engaged. At 2000 RPM the Riedel disengages and shuts down whil the engine itself continues to run up until 3000 RPM (idle).

 

It will have an interesting (though quite lenghty) startup.

Well you'd think there would be a change to the way we do things today!

Cool thanks for the info!

[RickVic]

That's the first thing i thought when i read the announcement. They had already mentioned that some members (Han?) of the dev team were looking forward to a Korea scenario, so it's not such a crazy idea.

 

Furthermore, with this new somewhat parallel development of the great battles, i can see this happening in the future as one of the modules they would be working on.

 

 

Also : Me262 = jet, future possible planes = jets  (plural). Didnt the Dev say something like "we look into jets performance"

[EAF19_Marsh]

OK, well:

 

 

any fighter without the ability to roll at high speed  'sux'  you would have thought Messerschmitt would have learned by then

 

It is not a binary issue of good vs. bad; aircraft design is a compromise Before power assisted controls, aircraft become more difficult to maneouvre (move the controls) at higher speed. The 262 did not 'sux' [sic], it simply had a slower roll rate at higher speed but it also was harder to pitch and yaw; it was not the first nor the last to have this issue. Tabs were a very new concept (very few aircraft had them) and compressability was poorly understood. You could equally say that the Zero 'sux', but the fact was that the 262 ailerons functioned without major issues, even if - had it been totally redesigned a few years latter - Messerschmidt would likely have changed a few things.

 

it is a fact that the Me262 slat design was absolutely used as a basis for the early F86 Sabre wing slats

 

 

I do not have the book so cannot read through the argument, but I concede that these may have been an inspiration for the subsequent fitting of last. The 109 used - depending on how you view it - a Handley-Page influenced design for its slats but a lot of time ahd passed by then and undoubtedly the 109 integration of slats was new. By mid-war this was an understood and oft-used aspect of wing design. The Sabre lacked these until the E / F (?) models, which is something of a gap between the known 262 design and their being used on the Saber models. Suggests to me - maybe I am wrong - that the idea was used rather than the technology, and only later in the F-86 evolution.

 

 

But in flight test it showed the positive effect it had on airflow over the control surfaces . In fact this was the reason for swept wing design after the war. I do not claim this as truth, but a lot of people seems to believe that and it is only later I read comments like in this topic that the swept wing design of the 262 had nothing to do with development of the F 86 wing design

 

German research into fluid dynamics and the work on swept wings was advanced, which fitted very well with their efforts to introduced advanced designs. The 262 wing sweep - at 12 degrees - offers virtually no benefit. The 163 wing did offer drag reduction and compressability delays. The DH 108 began in 1944 and benefited post-war from German research but the principles had been understood outside Germany before 1939, if not adopted in any practical way.

 

 

Was not used by anyone......

 

The Su-9 was a rush-job of using left-over German bits, but despite its nominal resemblance, the wing is totally different which makes it quite a different aircraft. Note that the Meteor has similar overall features, but it and the 262 were not a copy of each other (you could say the same for high-performance fighters the world over 1935-onwards). The proof in the pudding is that no major fighter designs take up the 262 form from the late 1940s (though some Russian engines are briefly based on German examples) as the 262 design - while innovative in its time - did not have much longevity for a fighter. A tricycle undercarriage and 2 [slung] engines on the wings was and is a  feature of many aircraft, but the Soviets tried it briefly and then abandoned it for combat aircraft for the same reason as everyone else; it did not have much of a future.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

I do not have the book so cannot read through the argument, but I concede that these may have been an inspiration for the subsequent fitting of last. The 109 used - depending on how you view it - a Handley-Page influenced design for its slats but a lot of time ahd passed by then and undoubtedly the 109 integration of slats was new. By mid-war this was an understood and oft-used aspect of wing design. The Sabre lacked these until the E / F (?) models, which is something of a gap between the known 262 design and their being used on the Saber models. Suggests to me - maybe I am wrong - that the idea was used rather than the technology, and only later in the F-86 evolution.

 

All Sabres had the leading edge slats except the those fitted with the 6-3 wing

Edited November 27, 2017 by RoflSeal

[EAF19_Marsh]

All Sabres had the leading edge slats except the those fitted with the 6-3 wing

 

 

Fair enough; my point was that leading edge slats pre-date the 262 and Saber, so identifying the 262 as the original idea for all swept-wing leading-edge slats seems a trifle optimistic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Gugnunc#/media/File:H.P.39_%22Gugnunc%22.gif

 

The 262 was a remarkable aircraft, but it was not the holy grail of aircraft design, nor should its influence be over-stated.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

If you insist being accurate about it, the Me P.1101 and Bell X-5 were the true predecessors of the F-86 Sabre.

 

 

Leading edge slats were nothing new (though rarely used by the US Airforce at the time) but their implementation on a swept wing. Also it's no secrit the american design berau made good use of captured german aerodynamical ressearch data which proved to be valuable for future.

Edited November 28, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[EAF19_Marsh]

If you insist being accurate about it, the Me P.1101 and Bell X-5 were the true predecessors of the F-86 Sabre.

 

 

But, to illustrate the point that no one had a monopoly on innovation or ideas, the Gloster E28 had a nose intake and so did the experimental Sabre (XP-86). The swept wings were a latter addition and certainly inspired / accelerated by captured German research data, but 3 different companies all took the central mounted engine with nose intake decision independently of each other.

[Mac_Messer]

Well, provided that 1CGS can`t make 20 aircraft a year, I`d hate any of the resources going to making jets. Any of them. The 262 is almost completely absent online. Even if it didn`t a flight of 24 aircraft had barely 2 262 players to shoo away some Mustangs but often they were flown by people who can only T&B (yes, T&B in a Schwalbe).

 

So now, including ONE JET lead us to friggin talking about bunch of OTHER JETS so we can have balance. It is a lost cause. Aren`t there 50 other prop planes that we can use much more than those?

[LukeFF]

Well, provided that 1CGS can`t make 20 aircraft a year, I`d hate any of the resources going to making jets. Any of them. The 262 is almost completely absent online. Even if it didn`t a flight of 24 aircraft had barely 2 262 players to shoo away some Mustangs but often they were flown by people who can only T&B (yes, T&B in a Schwalbe).

 

So now, including ONE JET lead us to friggin talking about bunch of OTHER JETS so we can have balance. It is a lost cause. Aren`t there 50 other prop planes that we can use much more than those?

The problem is your argument revolves entirely around multiplayer and totally ignores single player.

[Heliopause]

 

 

 

6./ZG26_5tuka, on 26 Nov 2017 - 19:37, said: Yes, the pilot would first start the Riedel starter motor via an electrical starter and let it run until up till 800 RPM. Than it would be coupled with the turbine with a clutch and the ignition for the jet engine engaged. At 2000 RPM the Riedel disengages and shuts down whil the engine itself continues to run up until 3000 RPM (idle). It will have an interesting (though quite lenghty) startup. Well you'd think there would be a change to the way we do things today! Cool thanks for the info!

 

Also: the Riedel starter motor could als be started by groundcrew (pulling a handle on a chain).

[ICDP]

Fair enough; my point was that leading edge slats pre-date the 262 and Saber, so identifying the 262 as the original idea for all swept-wing leading-edge slats seems a trifle optimistic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Gugnunc#/media/File:H.P.39_%22Gugnunc%22.gif

 

The 262 was a remarkable aircraft, but it was not the holy grail of aircraft design, nor should its influence be over-stated.

 

I don't believe anyone in this thread stated the Me262 was a major influence for all post war Jet design.  I already conceded the 262 was not the holy grail of jet design and that it was not the influence some believe it to be.

 

In the same reply I specifically corrected part of your erroneous statement that, "The 262 was not used by anyone and the wing design influenced no one."  Proof has been provided that the F-86 Sabre design team used the actual Me262 slat design.  Bear in mind that Me262 slats are a different design on the leading edge slat concept and as such lifting that design directly is indeed the very definition of "influencing".  The fact that leading edge slats pre-dated the Me262 is irrelevant to that point.  Or maybe we should simply state that every single aircraft ever produced is a copy of the Wright Flyer?

 

You made the point the Me262 had influenced no one.  That statement was incorrect, no amount of shifting arguments will change that fact.

[CUJO_1970]

"...the next thing I noticed was that I was going about twice as fast as in the Thunderbolt and there were no vibrations. By my standards this thing was just screaming across the countryside, going like the proverbial bat out of hell. I felt a deep sense of exhilaration...pulled the throttles back to idle, I was doing nearly five hundred miles per hour - and nothing happened. When I did that in the P-47 it was like hitting a brick wall. Nothing like that in the 262..."

 

- Bob Strobell - American Raiders - The Race to Capture the Luftwaffe's Secrets

Edited November 29, 2017 by CUJO1970

[CUJO_1970]

German jet engine technology was used by G.E. in the development of the combustion chambers for the engines in the P-80.

 

After finding jet engine components in a factory in Stolberg, Germany in December 1944 Harold Watson said:

 

"We shipped this evidence back to the U.S...because at this time the G.E. people were having a devil of a time with buckets [the combustion chamber for the jet engine that was to power the P-80 jet], and this information helped in the development of a new [engine] bucket." - American Raiders.

[ICDP]

In the many years I have been interested in aviation I have seen the invalid arguments that German aircraft were far more advanced etc etc.  This is usually vehemently opposed by those who take the other foolish stance of "German aviation tech influneced no one".  Both are flawed arguments that rely on anecdotal evidence at best and can easily be refuted by actual evidence.

 

What is even more worrying, is when presented with this incontrovertible evidence the proponents of either fallacious stance refuse to budge, or simply "move the goalposts".  They will invent and refute simple strawman arguments that were never part of the debate.  The hope is by successfully refuting that strawman argument, it implies that they have successfully refuted ALL counter arguments.

 

The truth is these people NEVER change their mind, they will always invent a new reason why the evidence is wrong, or seek ways to invalidate it.  Or they simply retreat and come back when the coast is clear with identical beliefs and arguments.

Edited November 29, 2017 by ICDP

[EAF19_Marsh]

You made the point the Me262 had influenced no one.  That statement was incorrect, no amount of shifting arguments will change that fact.

 

 

The aerofoil design influenced no-one

The wing sweep influenced no-one

The engine configuration influenced no-one

The 004 influenced no-one

 

The slats - a technique well known and well use before the 262 entered serviced - may have convinced North American to fit this to the F-86, the swept wings of which did owe their origins to German work. If that makes you happy, so be it. Looking at an F-86 and 262 side by side, the differences both large and small are immediately apparent. The last 70 years of jet fighters do not look much like a 262 (or Meteor), suggesting the influence of the aircraft was limited

 

If you want to scrabble for small things that were used by Allied designers after the total and utter defeat of the vaunted Luftwaffe, go ahead. Does not change the fact that - beyond the 1930s research into high-speed fluid dynamics and the swept-wing output (very much a German specialty) - the influence of the 262 was very limited.

 

A ground-breaking aircraft in itself, that toyed with novel features, but not in and of itself a major influence on post-war design.

 

German jet engine technology was used by G.E. in the development of the combustion chambers for the engines in the P-80.

 

 

 

Bully for them. Could have used a Nene, though, what with that being a significantly superior engine.

 

The truth is these people NEVER change their mind, they will always invent a new reason why the evidence is wrong, or seek ways to invalidate it.  Or they simply retreat and come back when the coast is clear with identical beliefs and arguments.

 

 

 

Funny, seems to be your perspective. Aircraft design is a very complex business and it is very difficult to 'lift' aspects of one aircraft to use on another. As with everything else, their are breakthroughs and trends. If you feel that the North American use of slats means that the team were totally in hock to Messerschmidt then feel free. As has been pointed out, this is untrue. Slats were well known. The 262 used these on semi-swept wing. So did the Sabre. The wing design undoubtedly came from German high-speed research, but the 262 wing was not swept for this reason. the slats were incorporated for low-speed handling, not high speed (ie, the same reason that slats had been used since the 1920s). The Sabre used this approach - in common with straight wing designs. If NA used the 262 mechanism for their; fine. Still does not mean that the wing, mounted, under-slung engine design with what was basically an un-swept wing influenced the F-86 or anything else.

 

You have your hobby-horse on this, so be it. It is a subtler argument to the one you to which you seem wedded.

Edited November 29, 2017 by EAF19_Marsh

[ICDP]

See my post above yours.  You fit that bill perfectly, for example.

 

 

The aerofoil design influenced no-one

The wing sweep influenced no-one

The engine configuration influenced no-one

The 004 influenced no-one

 

Absolutely none of these points were raised as factual in my post(s).  Yet here you are, moving the goalposts and attributing them to me and arguing these points.

 

The actual point I was making was that while the legendary status of the Me262 being a major influence on Jet fighter design was mostly wrong, the slat design was in fact used on the F86.  This point was accompanied with and backed up by actual evidence and not opinion.  In response to this point and the proof presented you have consistently invented strawman arguments, or moved the goalposts (see above example).  You have now resorted to full Ad Hominem attacks by accusing me of being a Lufftwaffe lover.  Well done, your debating skills are legendary.

 

For reference from a very quick Google search (it's called fact checking, you should try it)

1. P80 first flight - 8 Jan 1944
2. RR Nene first run - 27 Oct 1944
3. First RR Nene test flight - 18 July 1945 (in a modified P-80 no less)

 

So no, G.E. could not have used the Nene as a basis for the P80 because it wasn't available.  Ironically as stated, it was a modified P80 that was used in the first Nene engine test flight on 18th July 1945.  Please note, this is not the same as me stating the German 004 jet engine was the influence for the G.E jet engine.

 

For the record, I no longer wish to engage with you on this subject.  At one point you seemed open to honest debate and to chaging position based on factual evidence but I was clearly wrong.

Edited November 29, 2017 by ICDP

[Herne]

Well I learned something today. I had no Idea that the US had working Jets during the War. Wiki was a good read, so many test pilots died seemingly because they forgot to do stuff, and it seems this is at least part of the reason for the delay in this bird seeing active service, due to being grounded.

[EAF19_Marsh]

See my post above yours.  You fit that bill perfectly and on top of that are now resorting to ad hominem attacks.

 

 

And

 

Well done, your debating skills are legendary.

For reference form a very quick Goolge (it's called fact checking, you should try it)

 

Would those be ad hominem statements? Why, yes they would

 

 

 

For reference form a very quick Goolge (it's called fact checking, you should try it)

1. P80 first flight - 8 Jan 1944
2. RR Nene first run - 27 Oct 1944
3.  

 

So let me get this straight. The running of a Nene - and all the R&D development that went in to it - was totally ignored by the US centifugal engine design work but after July 1945 the breakthrough (with the Nene running, its predecessors having run for several years and sucessors under testing) came ONLY from looking at the combustion chambers of a 1942 German axial flow engine design? Wow, it looks like the UIS and UK were completely incapable of doing anything!

 

Funny, though, RR seems to have managed all of this without German help. I wonder if maybe some work carried out during the war might have been contemporaneous?

 

So no, G.E. could not have used the Nene as a basis for the P80 because it wasn't available.

 

 

Except that it was, as it was under testing for a year before its first flight. Captured 004s only became available after May '45, which is a remarkably small time period for their use as the blueprint for major parts of an engine. Indeed, given the design of the Nene had been going on (ignoring its forerunners) since mid-44, you would have thought that would have been a better source of data, not least because the Nene offered better power and reliability than the Jumo.

 

There has been a long propensity - partly because of the drama and apparent entertainment of  the hubris / nemesis aspects, to claim in histories that intractable problems were only solved by captured German a data - see the tendency to ignore Goddard - while the reality is more complicated and progress usually stems from a variety of sources inputs and influence

 

Ironically as stated, it was a modified P80 44-83027 that was used in the first Nene engine test flight on 18th July 1945.

I no longer wish to engage with you on this subject.  At one point you seemed open to honest debate and to chaging position based on factual evidence but I was clearly wrong.

 

 

 

Though ground runs and air tests started before that; the first flight was in summer '45; the engine design and technology pre-dates this by half a year or more

On the contrary, you have decided that the link between the 262 un-swept wing slats and the F-86 slats mean that one was totally copied from the other. I challenge this as very unlikely, given the history of slats as a concept. You suggest that this means the 262 had significant influence on post-war designs. I contend that its influence as an aircrfat was extremely limited.

 

German high-speed research was very influential, particularly with regard to wing sweep aspects. However a lot of what was done in Germany turned out to be far less influential either because it was very aircraft-specific, because it took an existing concept and merely modified it (see slats) or because though it was an interesting idea, it could not be used with contemporary technology (flying wings, forward-swept wings).

 

Open your mind a little to the subject and try to understand the argument about aircraft tends, features and technologies.

[ICDP]

Well I learned something today. I had no Idea that the US had working Jets during the War. Wiki was a good read, so many test pilots died seemingly because they forgot to do stuff, and it seems this is at least part of the reason for the delay in this bird seeing active service, due to being grounded.

 

The P-80 was a good design that flew operationaly well into the 1950s.  Had the Me262 been far more numerous I would imagine the UK and US would have pushed their Jet designs for release.  The Germans were more desperate but despite the presence of the Me262 the Allies never lost the upper hand in the Airwar and there was no need to commit resources to releasing front line jet fighters.

Edited November 29, 2017 by ICDP

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

1. The aerofoil design influenced no-one

2. The wing sweep influenced no-one

3. The engine configuration influenced no-one

4. The 004 influenced no-one

....

5.  The last 70 years of jet fighters do not look much like a 262 (or Meteor), suggesting the influence of the aircraft was limited

....

6.  A ground-breaking aircraft in itself, that toyed with novel features, but not in and of itself a major influence on post-war design.

...

7.  The wing design undoubtedly came from German high-speed research, but the 262 wing was not swept for this reason. the slats were incorporated for low-speed handling, not high speed (ie, the same reason that slats had been used since the 1920s).

1. Why should it?
2. German late war designs showed that the straight, backward swept wing was the best balanced in performence and economy (unlike the british elliptical wings for example). Back than both allies and germans had eperimented with variaous wing arrangements.
3. This isn't true when looking at modern airliners. Outside engines have the benefit of increased cooling efficiency, better handling and easier maintanance and they provide better safety (for example if one engine catches fire). The same reasons convinced the US airforce to fit their A-10 with seperated engine nacelles located outside of the main frame.
4. Wrong. German axial flow engines (not only the Jumo 004 B but also the BMW 003 and HeS 011) were analysed and tested by allied to provide means of improving their own designs. This of course wasn't entirely based on benefits of thegerman technology but also it's shortcomings (for example use of unsuited materials). Infact the UdSSR even copied the Jumo 004 and BMW003 utilizing them in their designs until the MiG-15.
5. Post war generation jets were inspired by the Me P.1101 and Ta 183 designs. The use of centrifugal engines further contributed to the radical change in design compared to the 262.
6. See above for influrences on post war designs.
7. Thats wrong. The relatively low sweep of the wing was a compromise of desired performence and practicality. If the sweep was higher the handling had suffered and longer runways (which germany was so short of in 1945) were required to operate from. Judging by the fact it already outclassed all common allied types there was no need to aim for higher airspeeds in 1944. In a development ressearch document it's mentioned that new iterations of the 262 (HG II and III) would reccieve a 45° sweep angle to increase performence.

Edited November 29, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Heliopause]

BTW: 2 P-80's flew a bit in Italy (see pic) and 2 went to Great Britain in the last year of the war in Europe.

 

[CUJO_1970]

Bully for them. Could have used a Nene, though, what with that being a significantly superior engine.

 

They couldn't, because the Nene was not in production at that time.

 

When they finally did get the prototype Nene mated to a P80 (#44-83027) several months after WWII, it promptly disintegrated in flight and the P80 was destroyed on November 14, 1945.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1. Why should it?

    

The debate was about influence of the Me 262 aircraft on subsequent development. I did no argue that it should, I said quite the opposite

1. German late war designs showed that the straight, backward swept wing was the best balanced in performence and economy (unlike the british elliptical wings for example). Back than both allies and germans had eperimented with variaous wing arrangements.

    

I’m missing the relevance here, what is a ‘straight, backwards swept wing’ and what does it have to do with this?

1. This isn't true when looking at modern airliners. Outside engines have the benefit of increased cooling efficiency, better handling and easier maintanance and they provide better safety (for example if one engine catches fire). The same reasons convinced the US airforce to fit their A-10 with seperated engine nacelles located outside of the main frame.

    

OK, so the Boeing 707 and A-10 were somehow influenced by the Me 262? That is an argument of extreme desperation. The airliners uses his configuration because of ease of maintenance and the bi-pass ratio of the engines (as well as noise reduction). It has nothing to do with cooling and is not much of a safety feature as you are very open to FOD and the asymmetry of thrust would cause more problems in case of engine failure, not less.

1. Wrong. German axial flow engines (not only the Jumo 004 B but also the BMW 003 and HeS 011) were analysed and tested by allied to provide means of improving their own designs. This of course wasn't entirely based on benefits of thegerman technology but also it's shortcomings (for example use of unsuited materials). Infact the UdSSR even copied the Jumo 004 and BMW003 utilizing them in their designs until the MiG-15.

    

Ditched within 4 years. Please show me an engine used in fighters that was based on anything from Jumo or Heinkel. Kuznetsov engines have some lineage this way, but that is it. If you argument is Me 262 influence = Nene-powered MiG-15 then you have a very strange logic to your argument

1. Post war generation jets were inspired by the Me P.1101 and Ta 183 designs. The use of centrifugal engines further contributed to the radical change in design compared to the 262.

    

So German designs influent post-war fighters and non-German centrifugal engines influenced the design? You cannot have it both ways. Also – as indicated – jet deigns before VE day had centrally-mounted engines, so it cannot have simply been something those clever Germans dreamt up

1. See above for influrences on post war designs.

Already refuted

1. Thats wrong. The relatively low sweep of the wing was a compromise of desired performence and practicality. If the sweep was higher the handling had suffered and longer runways (which germany was so short of in 1945) were required to operate from. Judging by the fact it already outclassed all common allied types there was no need to aim for higher airspeeds in 1944. In a development ressearch document it's mentioned that new iterations of the 262 (HG II and III) would reccieve a 45° sweep angle to increase performence.

    

Rubbish, it was a CoG issue. I advise you to read a book on the matter. Napkin designs for subsequent models may have wanted  a greater sweep, but the service variant’s wings were nothing to do with high-speed design

 

They couldn't, because the Nene was not in production at that time.

It was in development and ground running tests. I find it difficult to believe that the best solution to the problem came from scavenging bits of engines from enemy aircraft designed 2 years ago to different standards

 

When they finally did get the prototype Nene mated to a P80 (#44-83027) several months after WWII, it promptly disintegrated in flight and the P80 was destroyed on November 14, 1945.

 

 

Much like hundreds of 004s. Clearly here the US and UK were copying German jet engine development

Edited November 29, 2017 by EAF19_Marsh

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Nene itself was a dead end. No high performance jet engine uses centrifugal compressors nowadays except for APUs.

Axial flow compressor was the way forward and the first one that saw major use was the Jumo 004

[JV69badatflyski]

 

OK, so the Boeing 707 and A-10 were somehow influenced by the Me 262? That is an argument of extreme desperation. The airliners uses his configuration because of ease of maintenance and the bi-pass ratio of the engines (as well as noise reduction). It has nothing to do with cooling and is not much of a safety feature as you are very open to FOD and the asymmetry of thrust would cause more problems in case of engine failure, not less.

1. Don't you think those are eaxct the same reasons why the engines were under the wings and not inside? adding the fact those were first gen, new tech, low thrust engines with a possible failure ratio higher than piston engines?

   Germans build their aircraft with an easy maintenace goal (not like the brits ). Willy was influenced by Kurt and how he engeneerd the wurger in modular sections, willy apllied the same process for the 262 in 40 when the drawing of the 262 began.

 

 

 

Ditched within 4 years. Please show me an engine used in fighters that was based on anything from Jumo or Heinkel. Kuznetsov engines have some lineage this way, but that is it. If you argument is Me 262 influence = Nene-powered MiG-15 then you have a very strange logic to your argument

1. SNECMA ATAR 101 and what followed

   At least the French weren't ashamed to officially say they used Germans engeneers to build their first axial turbine based on the bwm 003.

   Maybe other countries were so ashamed or hide themself behind the  "patriotic" pretext so they didn't divulg the thruth

   Following your argument, please show me a post 50' fighter using a centrifugal engine...strange don't you think?

    

   Axials are harder to  build than centrifugals, but much more efficient when it come to weight/thrust if they are properly engeneerd.

    

So German designs influent post-war fighters and non-German centrifugal engines influenced the design? You cannot have it both ways. Also – as indicated – jet deigns before VE day had centrally-mounted engines, so it cannot have simply been something those clever Germans dreamt up

1. Just tell me: how many Germans engeneers ended in the states in 45...with their whole family? and in russia ? and in england?...so yes germans desings influenced all aircrafts build after the war till the 70' at least...

   for the fuselage mounted engines, there are enough web pages if you want to read about the germans designs, you'll find there a serious great number of airplanes with such a config, no, the americans weren't the first to design it, actually how good was the p59 again? With those perfect centrufugal engines build in the fuselage, and those perfect aerodynamics, so marvelously calcuted...hmmmm so good and so effcient this P.59 that flew 2years after the 262....great job!

    

   Germans were the only ones having a supersonic wind tunnel with a reasonalbe size, not like the 1inch tunnel in the states....ooh wait, where did this windtunnel go after the war with all the documents?..  yeah the states, bit by bit and rebuild for the NACA. hmmmmm no influence here please look the other way...

   What the world's avionists were trying to figure by calculations, those speaky germans already tested it in "live" situations and documented it before 45.

   when they came to the US, they already new what they were doing.

   That's the story.

    

    

 

[JG5_Zesphr]

Actually no German scientists could work for the UK post war due to law so we used them to pay the Americans (Alexander lippisch being the most notable

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I believe that Mr (or should I say Captain) Eric ”Winkle” Brown would like to have a say in this thread...

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by SvAF/F19_Klunk

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

And.....

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by SvAF/F19_Klunk

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

..and IF u want to know more about this amazing man... here is the documentary to watch..

 

[Elem]

And.....

 

 

Fantastic reports from an amazing man. Thanks Klunk, always good to hear "Winkle" talk flying.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Fantastic reports from an amazing man. Thanks Klunk, always good to hear "Winkle" talk flying.

Indeed... interesting to hear that his all time favourite prop plane was the de Havilland Hornet