Jump to content

Recommended Posts

when do we think the me 262 is coming anyway? hopefully not another month, the dora has to be ready and the 262 can't be that far away from completion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, halowraith1 said:

when do we think the me 262 is coming anyway? hopefully not another month, the dora has to be ready and the 262 can't be that far away from completion

 

I would say mid April

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

 

I would say mid April

Yep, highly likely around easter, which is 21st-22nd. My bet is on 16th april.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 6:57 AM, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

No, they won't. They'd only make a vapour trail at higher altitude - but that's also made by prop-driven aircraft.

Here is how it looks in flight:

 

 

This example is not running the Jumo 004 engines. They are a modern engine. Most likely the GE J85. The originals burned a fuel known as J2, which was a synthetic fuel oil very much the same as kerosene. I think they may have run diesel later when fuel was short. I do not think the J2 would burn dirty and would not leave a highly visible smoke trail. Perhaps a slight barely noticeable line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many jet powered aircraft emit large plumes of dark exhaust.  Some of them are pretty extreme, like B-52s.

 

Of course, I have no firsthand experience of the 262 and have no idea if that holds true for it( in the conditions it was actually operated in at the time) or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Many jet powered aircraft emit large plumes of dark exhaust.  Some of them are pretty extreme, like B-52s.

 

The B-52 smokes a bit but lots of it is due water injection used at take-offs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was working for American Airlines back when we still had Boeing 707. They had the same engine that was in the '52, only four of them, of course, instead of eight. The amount of smoke they produced on take-off had to be seen to be believed. And noisey as all Hell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Many jet powered aircraft emit large plumes of dark exhaust.  Some of them are pretty extreme, like B-52s.

 

Of course, I have no firsthand experience of the 262 and have no idea if that holds true for it( in the conditions it was actually operated in at the time) or not.

We keep comparing the Jumo 004 to modern jets. The difference in power and fuel consumption are quite different. Also not totally sure but is modern jet fuel synthetic or is it a more diesel like composition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 262 video did not show much black smoke, if any - even on takeoff.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SShrike said:

Also not totally sure but is modern jet fuel synthetic or is it a more diesel like composition. 

Anything is Diesel as long as it can fuel Diesel engines. The chemical composition varies depending on source (coal, soy bean, whatever). Diesel fuel hence has price (and availability) as main metric, much rather so than chemical composition.

 

As long as it is liquid and burns air, you can use it in gas turbines (gaseous fuel works as well, as mentioned above). But it just would be good if it stayed liquid during the flight, meaning it shouldn‘t freeze up there.

 

Hence the question to be answered is „can you make something carbon based and liquid between -70 centigrades and +70 centigrades?“

 

You then go to your chemistry kitchen and try some blends of whatever you can make to match these specs.

 

The Germans made their stuff from coal, so it was rather straight forward to use their (two) standard processes that made something liquid enough from coal to call it Diesel. Lo and behold, the Jumo jets worked with that. Now, why don‘t they smoke? I‘m guessing here, but one of the two processes to make fuel (any kind, but mostly B4 grade) produced isopsraffinic componds. Those burn rather well/clean. It comes closer to the rather narrowly defined blend „JP-1“.

 

JP-1 was to be produced for NATO as the first jet fuel. Alas, only the least of all refineries could make such a fuel grade in high quantity (read: price). Hence JP-3 was what they came up with eventually, something that any moonshiner can produce from a bucket of crude. A bucket of crude gives you half a bucket of JP-3. Sounds good, huh? Needless to say, such a variation in compounds has drawbacks (not cool if only half your fuel in the tank adheres to the temperature specs), hence JP-4 (and eventually Jet A-1) was invented, a compromise that everyone could live with.

 

You should not confuse that kind of kerosene with the kerosene used as rocket fuel, RP-1. If you burn your sauce with liquid oxygen or especially nitric acid, uneven composition and variation in quality can ultimately be most problematic to any intrepid space traveller. Hence RP-1 is a very well defined juice. If someone is really that bat sh*t crazy enough to work with liquid rocket fuels for a living and that guy tells you to go shopping for the pricey stuff, you better listen to him. So RP-1 it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Goblin said:

 

 

This is the a/c Hans Fay defected in. It later crashed in the USA after double engine failure.

 

Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a "Schwalbe" (Wk. Nr. 111711). This new airframe had been surrendered on 31 March 1945 by Messerschmitt test pilot Hans Fay who defected during a functional check flight rather than fly it to an operational unit, landing at Rhein-Main, Frankfurt. It was the first Me 262 to fall into Allied hands. The Me 262 was taken to Thornville, France, and shipped separately to USA on the Manawaska Victory. It was not one of Watson's Whizzers. The Me 262 was allocated Foreign Equipment number FE-107, and later T2-711. It was test flown by Russell E. Schleeh shortly after its capture. This aircraft was flown by Test Pilot Walter J. McAuley Jr. of the Flight Performance Section, Flight Test Division, Wright Field, Ohio, in a test flight for comparison with a Lockheed P-80. During the flight both engines of the Me 262 caught fire. McAuley, Jr., successfully parachuted to safety, surviving as the aircraft crashed on 20 Aug 1945 ~two miles South of Xenia, Ohio near Route 68.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I did a Quick Mission the other day with a g-14 with the big cannon vs 8 sopwiths. It was a lot of fun :lol:. Knocked em out in a few passes, one of the little fellas got a few holes in my wing lol. Figured it would be good practice for getting ready for the Schwalbe hahahaha

 :fly:

 

On a more serious note, does anyone know if there are any Jumo originals running? Just  curious, I noticed some of the discussion was questioning whether or not the engines had exhaust trails. I would think they would just because of the fuel type

Edited by rowdyb00t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, rowdyb00t said:

does anyone know if there are any Jumo originals running?

 

the late paul allen acquired an me 262 and started the project to restore it to flying condition with junkers engines for the flying heritage collection. FHC's facebook page has a short clip of one of the jumos on the test stand just starting up; flames and all. that was back in 2015, and they said at the end of last year that the jet was almost ready for taxi and flight tests.

 

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-restorations/paul-g-allens-messerschmitt-me-262-progress-report.html

Edited by halowraith1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, halowraith1 said:

the late paul allen acquired an me 262 and started the project to restore it to flying condition with junkers engines for the flying heritage collection. FHC's facebook page has a short clip of one of the jumos on the test stand just starting up; flames and all. that was back in 2015, and they said at the end of last year that the jet was almost ready for taxi and flight tests.

 

But why? Do they want to kill somebody? Those engines are dangerous unless someone would seriously re-engineer them but then they will not be originals anymore. Just stick modern ones to the air-frame and don't endanger others.

Edited by Ehret
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the FHC always goes above and beyond. the reason it has taken so long is because they had two source two engines in decent condition and then rebuild them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

I was working for American Airlines back when we still had Boeing 707. They had the same engine that was in the '52, only four of them, of course, instead of eight. The amount of smoke they produced on take-off had to be seen to be believed. And noisey as all Hell!

 

I work at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International airport and there is a company called "Cargojet" that just recently retired their last 727. They would operate them in and out of the DHL hub here. These were extremely loud as well! On take off it would have a thick trail of soot coming from it's 3 engines. Much more smoke than even the 777s and 747s that fly the same DHL hub. The newer engines are so much more efficient (and MUCH less noisy) than the old tech of the 727 JT8 engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

I was working for American Airlines back when we still had Boeing 707. They had the same engine that was in the '52, only four of them, of course, instead of eight. The amount of smoke they produced on take-off had to be seen to be believed. And noisey as all Hell!

 

 

No kidding, the scream of the B-52 is like nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we had a large fleet of 727's. But that 707 smoked worse and the noise was deafening even with ear protection on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

But why? Do they want to kill somebody? Those engines are dangerous unless someone would seriously re-engineer them but then they will not be originals anymore. Just stick modern ones to the air-frame and don't endanger others.

They are using better materials in those Jumos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite, it's not so much that the design of the Jumo 004 is dangerous, it's an extremely competent piece of engineering. What made them so dangerous and short-lived was constant and extreme compromises forced upon engineering and manufacturing by shortages in materiel, manufacturing expertise and many other side effects of the war. A Jumo built to prototype specs with the materials the original engineers wanted to have would be much, much safer than any that flew in wartime conditions. I'd also argue that it'd still be an original, just not a wartime shitbox that may or may not sustain operational temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luftschiff said:

I'd also argue that it'd still be an original, just not a wartime shitbox that may or may not sustain operational temperatures.

I'd very much argue against that.

 

It was not so much a problem conceptually how to build an axial gas turbine. Much more so how you handle the heat when all you want is a small (especially thin) and light thingy. Getting power form a jet engine is all about how you can handle heat. That is where a lot of the progress is made. Besides, if you give that engine high grade titanium blades etc, it is hardly a Jumo 004 anymore. The Jumo was very much designed for the present raw materials at hand. You honestly think they would be like "Aw, silicon carbide would really make this part work, but all we have is low grade steel, so let's just take that one".

 

Any material you plan to use sets the requirements for cooling to have the part not lose its rigidity. The problem was how to keep temperatures such that they were within specs for the materials used. Just using materials with a far higher spec would also have made it possible for them to increase power output of the engine. What you're basically seeing with those jet engines is that they were a compromise of size, weight and power output requirements. They dimensioned the engine such that they thought they could handle the heat at the desired power output. Well, we know for a fact they couldn't.

 

The British used centrifugal compressors for good reason. They knew that ("even though they had the good material and plenty of it at hand") by going that route, they could make an engine last 100 hours instead of 10 when making an axial turbine. This means the British sacrificed dimensions for increased reliability. The British engine wouldn't have lasted longer at all if it was an axial jet engine. So the accepted the downsides of producing a larger engine for the upside it being a simpler, more reliable engine. An engine that in its core was almost like the superchargers they were so capable of making. It would take the British more than a decade to have axial gas turbines such that they surpass centrifugal turbines in reliable power outputs.

 

It is simply not true that the poor Germans were only hampered by their (for a large part self-inflicted) material shortage. They simply went the fancy route and they paid the price for that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I'd very much argue against that.

 

 1*Besides, if you give that engine high grade titanium blades etc, it is hardly a Jumo 004 anymore.

 

2*The Jumo was very much designed for the present raw materials at hand. You honestly think they would be like "Aw, silicon carbide would really make this part work, but all we have is low grade steel, so let's just take that one".

 

 

3*The British used centrifugal compressors for good reason. They knew that ("even though they had the good material and plenty of it at hand") by going that route, they could make an engine last 100 hours instead of 10 when making an axial turbine. This means the British sacrificed dimensions for increased reliability. The British engine wouldn't have lasted longer at all if it was an axial jet engine. So the accepted the downsides of producing a larger engine for the upside it being a simpler, more reliable engine. An engine that in its core was almost like the superchargers they were so capable of making. It would take the British more than a decade to have axial gas turbines such that they surpass centrifugal turbines in reliable power outputs.

 

It is simply not true that the poor Germans were only hampered by their (for a large part self-inflicted) material shortage. They simply went the fancy route and they paid the price for that.



I have to argue your arguing:biggrin:


1* Not true: if a put forged pistons,  new crankshafts, bigger injectors and even a Turbo in a B16 engine, it still will be a B16, i changed it's specs and way of running , but it's still a B16.
    Engine has been adapted to it's new role.

2* Check the 004A and it's specs . The B version is the same but built with flawed materials. It wasn't designed to run using coke's cans, it had to be adapted to use coke's cans.

3*Or maybe because whittle simply had a total lack of knowledge about axial compressors and it was the only way for him to come out with something safe,... logical.
    Ze germans wanted less frontal area so went the axial way, also logical.....2 different approach for the same question.
Germans didn't paid the price as history only remember the 262 and the 004 as the first operational jet and engine in WWII....with several "JET aces" at the stick. How many years after came the next Jet victory?:rolleyes:
Whittle is only remembered as the engine powering the "enemy" plane, aka mig-15...:biggrin:
 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New materials or not you would be nuts to prefer a plane with the 004s instead of say GE J85s. The latter will offer much better safety and performance and new materials will not help with everything like susceptibility to stalls or poor low speed acceleration. No one would be able to tell difference in air-shows between them, anyway. Why put rare, historic air-frames at extra risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have just familiarised myself with the starting procedure of the Jumo 004 engine and I found out that the tachometers had two ranges: 400 - 3000 RPM and 3000 - 9000 RPM. Switch buttons for the tachos were placed on the right side console just next to the starter handles.

The lower range was used mainly during starting sequence so I guess the switching between the two ranges will not be modelled (the same way as the switching between tanks is not modelled yet) and we will have only upper range at hand... If we need to start the engine again while airborne, the functional switch would be helpful but again in these situations "press E" substitution will be probably ready as well.

Edited by Tapi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ehret said:

New materials or not you would be nuts to prefer a plane with the 004s instead of say GE J85s. The latter will offer much better safety and performance and new materials will not help with everything like susceptibility to stalls or poor low speed acceleration. No one would be able to tell difference in air-shows between them, anyway. Why put rare, historic air-frames at extra risk?


Agree with you on this, as the 262 from Messershmitt fundation flies with 85's that gives him the standard wwII specs and modern safety specs.
But don't underestimate the craziness of passionate people with money. The same, as for the 262, could also be said about the 190a-5, neverthless this bird flies several times a year in a fully operational state, using the world's only one 801d2 available . FHC is a crazy rebuilder with a lot of $$$, look what they fly, those are all unique airframes
Next one will be their ju-87.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

I have to argue your arguing:biggrin:

This is the place for it! :)

 

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

1* Not true: if a put forged pistons,  new crankshafts, bigger injectors and even a Turbo in a B16 engine, it still will be a B16, i changed it's specs and way of running , but it's still a B16.
    Engine has been adapted to it's new role.

FAA would certainly think otherwise. While you are absolutely right that for instance the J79 turbojet was retained and modified over 2+ decades, they hardly retained the same spec sheets. By solving the Jumo's basic problems like heat or compressor issues, you have an engine that operates as different as a modern jet engine from the original Jumo 004. We're down to semantics then.

 

But I agree, having that little moped engine spin up the compressor, that is fancy. Oldtimers do have that very special manner. Like a Ferrari 250 GTO, when driving in lesser weather, you can either keep the windows closed and the cockpit becomes sort of a link trainer (absent useful instrumentation for the task), or you roll down the window and the water from outside gets channeled straight into your left eye. But same as starting up your jet with that built in moped, it does make one look smart.

 

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

2* Check the 004A and it's specs . The B version is the same but built with flawed materials. It wasn't designed to run using coke's cans, it had to be adapted to use coke's cans.

So you had to basically make a Jumo 004A to make it somewhat reliable.

 

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

3*Or maybe because whittle simply had a total lack of knowledge about axial compressors and it was the only way for him to come out with something safe,... logical.
    Ze germans wanted less frontal area so went the axial way, also logical.....2 different approach for the same question.

No. Whittle and everybody else in that department were perfectly aware of how to build axial compressor turbines at the time. But they knew they could make reliable engines with centrifugal compressors right away. It took over 10 years for axial turbines to make centrifugal ones obsolete. By that time not just RR made very good axial turbines as well. At the time, it was certainly the right choice going for centrifugal compressors to have a lot of them and working. You can do one thing while not droping the other.

 

The Gloster Meteors had comparable capabilities to the Me-262. But none of those Meteors wanted to kill their pilots by just blowing up on their own. I'd say, that is a remarkable upside.

 

14 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:

But don't underestimate the craziness of passionate people with money.

:good:

 

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iirc galland flew meteors for the argentine air force after the war and considered it a fine competitor to the 262. also basically said that the derwent engines were better than the jumos.

 

so, who do we listen to? a famous ace who flew both aircraft, or blind germany fanboys?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tapi said:

I have just familiarised myself with the starting procedure of the Jumo 004 engine and I found out that the tachometers had two ranges: 400 - 3000 RPM and 3000 - 9000 RPM. Switch buttons for the tachos were placed on the right side console just next to the starter handles.

The lower range was used mainly during starting sequence so I guess the switching between the two ranges will not be modelled (the same way as the switching between tanks is not modelled yet) and we will have only upper range at hand... If we need to start the engine again while airborne, the functional switch would be helpful but again in these situations "press E" substitution will be probably ready as well.

 

Hey Tapi, where did you find this info? It sounds very interesting to me, I'd like to check it out! 😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

But I agree, having that little moped engine spin up the compressor, that is fancy. Oldtimers do have that very special manner. Like a Ferrari 250 GTO, when driving in lesser weather, you can either keep the windows closed and the cockpit becomes sort of a link trainer (absent useful instrumentation for the task), or you roll down the window and the water from outside gets channeled straight into your left eye. But same as starting up your jet with that built in moped, it does make one look smart.

 

 

You made me spill my coffee :lol:

 

53 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

The Gloster Meteors had comparable capabilities to the Me-262.

 

 

Nooooooooooooooooooooo, don't say that, they had just one thing in common: both flew,  one much better and faster than the other...when engines worked :rolleyes:

 

55 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 But none of those Meteors wanted to kill their pilots by just blowing up on their own. I'd say, that is a remarkable upside.

 

 

Second coffee spill.... :biggrin:

 

33 minutes ago, halowraith1 said:

a famous ace who flew both aircraft, or blind germany fanboys?

 

Someone forgot to take his sulfur, argon, calcium and samarium this morning? :lol:

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

So you had to basically make a Jumo 004A to make it somewhat reliable.

 


YEP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting thing: front wheel comes up separately and it has it's own brake lever. (see vid above at  23:00)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

oh, SWS would love to have a chat with you

 

3 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Case closed

 

ah, yes. because you lost ;)

Edited by halowraith1
  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, halowraith1 said:

ah, yes. because you lost ;)

 


He won by a long margin...as his answer is fully logical and related to the subject.
yours was like saying : "Hartmann found the F104 was nicer to fly than the 262 and the engine was much better"...i bet he did!
Don't compare an airplane from the fifties with one from 44...but you're free to compare the 262 to the meteor MKIII and read the full Rae evaluation report from 1946....

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:

 


He won by a long margin...as his answer is fully logical and related to the subject.
yours was like saying : "Hartmann found the F104 was nicer to fly than the 262 and the engine was much better"...i bet he did!
Don't compare an airplane from the fifties with one from 44...but you're free to compare the 262 to the meteor MKIII and read the full Rae evaluation report from 1946....

 

Except he probably didn't.  Hartmann hated the 104 so much that he pretty much lost his job arguing against it.  Anyhow, back to our originally scheduled programming ... :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/26/2019 at 2:49 PM, Gambit21 said:

262 vs Mustang etc is like an Oscar vs a Hellcat. (or better yet, P-38 vs Oscar)

 

If both pilots are on their toes neither can touch the other. One is far too maneuvable to worry, the other is much too fast to worry.

Someone makes a HUGE mistake then anything can happen.

 

Pretty simple equation really.

The Mustang airfoil was designed for speed, not lift. It cannot turn as well as everyone thinks and the Macchi can outclimb it.

Edited by 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if Lycoming T-53's from a Huey would fit, it and the Jumo had the same daddy.  Hope it has a fuel imbalance problem when its full, just as the Mustang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

the Macchi can outclimb it.

 

It's not that bad:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-12093.html

(Test is for a P-51B, but on the same engine settings the planes perform in an extremely similar manner, the B maybe being 2-3mph faster)

 

P-51B_Official_Performance_Figures_15May

 

3600 feet/min is about 18m/s, but as the report reads its not done at full power (WEP on even the most basic setting would add over 200hp) and with all the radiators fully opened, so in game I expect most players will be getting more out of it. While you can't chase a 109 through a climbing turn, I'm sure it'll be more than good enough to keep up with 190s. Against Messers you'll want to use the massively superior control at high speed and stellar energy retention to get the upper hand

 

Now if the devs are kind and give it 72 or even 75"HG that'll be a lot more interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×