The Me262 - Frank Whittle's legacy ?

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
The design highlights a limitation with the first jet engines: very little oomph.

Keeping inlets and effluxes short meant not losing thrust unnecessarily. The Ta-183/Messerschmidt designs were one way of doing it, the Vampire/Venom's split tail was another.


Everyone was groping around for the best option to minimise losses
Pod and boom, split tail, bifurcated inlets, one idea was even a dozen small turbojets buried across the wings!
All had disadvantages.
Pod and boom - weak structure
Split tail - needless complexity
Bifurcated ducts - complex to make

We of course ended up with all three compromises!
 
That the MiG-15 was a copy of the Ta-183 has been refuted.
They bear nothing in common bar looking like - well, a single engined jet.
The Ta-183 never existed other than on paper and a wind tunnel model
The MiG-9 has also been claimed to be a rough copy of the Ta-183, but was a bit of a dog.

Worth noting the Kurt Tank went to Argentina at wars end with the Ta-183 design and tried to develop it and put it into service. It was a dismal failure, despite not having the USAAF and RAF bombing his factory. Like so many ‘advanced’ German ‘war winning’ aircraft ideas at wars end, they were often well outside the designers competence and fatally flawed.

View attachment 402636
Da comrade, the USSR invented everything and never captured the engineering drawings, there is no link whatsoever...

Clue is Nene.

Reason I put a ;-) there but thanks for playing Google boy.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Everyone was groping around for the best option to minimise losses
Pod and boom, split tail, bifurcated inlets, one idea was even a dozen small turbojets buried across the wings!
All had disadvantages.
Pod and boom - weak structure
Split tail - needless complexity
Bifurcated ducts - complex to make

We of course ended up with all three compromises!

Best option? More thrust! :)
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Best option? More thrust! :)


Indeed.

5,000 lbs seemed to be the magic number that allowed a return to conservative design and manufacturing - except in the UK that retained a strange fixation with bifurcated ducts and engines buried in wings. On paper, more efficient, in practice, bloody daft.
 
I have a little bit on the development of our very early jets. Absolutely fascinating!
Got a question on the Meteor, I seem to remember somewhere, that the Meteor could be quite a dangerous aircraft for the pilot, in certain circumstances. Namely an engine loss on takeoff or landing. Any truth in that.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I have a little bit on the development of our very early jets. Absolutely fascinating!
Got a question on the Meteor, I seem to remember somewhere, that the Meteor could be quite a dangerous aircraft for the pilot, in certain circumstances. Namely an engine loss on takeoff or landing. Any truth in that.

Asymmetry?
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
I have a little bit on the development of our very early jets. Absolutely fascinating!
Got a question on the Meteor, I seem to remember somewhere, that the Meteor could be quite a dangerous aircraft for the pilot, in certain circumstances. Namely an engine loss on takeoff or landing. Any truth in that.


Didn’t earn the nickname ‘Meatbox’ for nothing.
 
Yes - asymmetric approaches (usually practising them rather than actual engine out) took a heavy toll of Meteor pilots. As observed before, the casualty rates were dreadful and at least one RAF station had a standing funeral party such was the regularity with which they were burying students who'd 'got the chop'
 

TamH70

MIA
Did the Meteor kill as many of our pilots as the Spitfire did? I seem to recall it delighted on harvesting newbie pilots on take-offs and landings.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Yes - asymmetric approaches (usually practising them rather than actual engine out) took a heavy toll of Meteor pilots. As observed before, the casualty rates were dreadful and at least one RAF station had a standing funeral party such was the regularity with which they were burying students who'd 'got the chop'


Iirc from a previous thread here, the RAF were losing @500 aircraft a year in the early jet years, and an average of 3 pilots per class were killed in advanced training.
 
Last edited:

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Did the Meteor kill as many of our pilots as the Spitfire did? I seem to recall it delighted on harvesting newbie pilots on take-offs and landings.


May be apocryphal, but allegedly the Meteors reputation was so deadly at one point, some students would resign rather than be posted to a Meteor OCU.
 
Last edited:
There was a “ quirk” of the meteor that to nick a turn of phrase from Lardbeast , was just waiting to bite your face.
On approach at low speed, low power settings and flaps on, if you then selected undercart down they would occasionally deploy one leg first.
This would initiate a yaw which if not corrected instantly with full rudder and into yaw engine, ( with its slow spool up).
The yawing airframes turbulent airflow would blank the elevator and the A/C would nose in from a couple of hundred feet.
It caught many on night approaches.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
The literal massacring of RAF pilots in the first decade of the jet age wasn’t helped by the fact you did advanced training in a pedestrian fixed undercarriage monoplane like a Percival Prentice, then were pointed at something wizzy and very fast and told to have a go.
The RAF didn’t start getting dedicated jet trainers until the early 50’s after which the carnage eased off.
 
It's quite strange, that with the War over, they didn't ground the Meteor. They couldn't wait to get shot of the Tiffies. Vampire's were coming on line and didn't have any such reputation.
I did read that some of the problems, was caused by the engines being place so far out on the wings. In all aspects the Meteor was a piston engined airframe retro fitted with jets.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
It's quite strange, that with the War over, they didn't ground the Meteor. They couldn't wait to get shot of the Tiffies. Vampire's were coming on line and didn't have any such reputation.
I did read that some of the problems, was caused by the engines being place so far out on the wings. In all aspects the Meteor was a piston engined airframe retro fitted with jets.


1945 - It was a jet, so it was the new hotness flow by pilots often with plenty of hours. It’s killing years were ahead of it as lots of green newly minted pilots transitioned to it.

Typhoon was different. By wars end it was a very war weary death trap killing more pilots than enemy action. Hence it’s grounding along with some of the other ‘war only’ death traps as soon as the shooting stopped.
 
Last edited:

tiv

LE
The design highlights a limitation with the first jet engines: very little oomph.

Keeping inlets and effluxes short meant not losing thrust unnecessarily. The Ta-183/Messerschmidt designs were one way of doing it, the Vampire/Venom's split tail was another.

And the Sea Hawk's bifurcated tailpipe a third. Also permitted a fuel tank in the rear fuselage.
 
It's quite strange, that with the War over, they didn't ground the Meteor. They couldn't wait to get shot of the Tiffies. Vampire's were coming on line and didn't have any such reputation.
I did read that some of the problems, was caused by the engines being place so far out on the wings. In all aspects the Meteor was a piston engined airframe retro fitted with jets.

Typhoons were simply outclassed by the in service Tempest in any case and the RAF had to do the very realistic cutback of aircraft types and people at wars end. Every fighter that had a prop was under review as the jet age had dawned. The Germans had operational and prototype jet bombers that flew at speeds beyond that capable with prop aircraft. We knew the Russians had captured trials aircraft and designers and would soon follow suit. Everything that couldnt justify itself in the era of 500+ mph and 35000 feet aircraft would be culled. Meteor could justify itslef, Typhoon couldnt.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Iirc, the RAF was in the process of moving from the Typhoon to Tempest In the first half of 1945 pending the arrival of the Vampire as it’s definitive jet ground attack aircraft.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Iirc, the RAF was in the process of moving from the Typhoon to Tempest In the first half of 1945 pending the arrival of the Vampire as it’s definitive jet ground attack aircraft.

...which knackers all the 1946 fanbois. Vampires and P-80s alles über der platz would've been a proper game-changer.
 
...which knackers all the 1946 fanbois. Vampires and P-80s alles über der platz would've been a proper game-changer.

The 1946 fanbois ignore the fact that surviving to 1946 means you've slowed the advance of Russians and the Western allies by 6-12 months, your factories and synthetic fuel plants are intact and your manpower levels still good. To have a Luftwaffe 46, you need to have a Luftwaffe 44 that has complete ascendancy over the allies, and ground forces that can stall the D Day landings and confines the allies. Being able to develop advanced aircraft means FA if you cant build them in number, fuel them, get them airborne with trained pilots and have the real estate to diversify your airbases.
All that would have done is accelerate the development of the allied response.
 

Latest Threads

Top