Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums

Best Jet of WW2?

Polls Discuss Best Jet of WW2? in the World War II - Aviation forums; Pretty neat....


Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Polls

View Poll Results: Best Jet of WW2?
Me262 152 59.84%
Gloster Meteor 27 10.63%
Bell P-59 Aircomet 7 2.76%
He162 18 7.09%
Ar234 28 11.02%
Me-163 13 5.12%
Yokosuka Ohka 6 2.36%
P-80 3 1.18%
Voters: 254. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-24-2005, 06:09 PM   #466
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,527
Country:
Pretty neat.
__________________

US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006

Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes:

fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

"wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2"

"ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life"
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-24-2005, 07:23 PM   #467
He who does not skim
 
Nonskimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,955
Country:
Send a message via MSN to Nonskimmer
Yeah, interesting!
Nonskimmer is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-24-2005, 07:37 PM   #468
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,527
Country:
How far do you think until someone in WW2 would have put out a turbo fan, or how long until someone broke the sound barrier in WW2. The Germans were close with the Me-163 and could have possibly done it with the P.1011 had it flown and been produced. The US did it shortly after WW2.
__________________

US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006

Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes:

fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

"wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2"

"ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life"
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-24-2005, 07:42 PM   #469
Anonymous
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet
How far do you think until someone in WW2 would have put out a turbo fan, or how long until someone broke the sound barrier in WW2. The Germans were close with the Me-163 and could have possibly done it with the P.1011 had it flown and been produced. The US did it shortly after WW2.
I think the turbofan required the turbojet to be fully debugged first, but it could have been done at any time. The turbofan is a little more complicated and it is not intuatively obvious that it will give performance gains (primarily in fuel economy).

As for breaking the sound barrier, it may have been done as early as sometime in 1946. But any usuable supersonic flight was still a long ways away. Flight dynamics change drastically above the speed of sound, and materials technology, even in the USA, had to progress a bit to sustain supersonic flight. Had the P.1011 been built and been capable of supersonic flight, it would have disintigrated or melted when it achieved it. But in reality, I suspect it could not have done so, it was not going to have as high a performance as the Mig-15, it didn't have the engine for it.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-24-2005, 07:52 PM   #470
Der Crewchief
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 30,527
Country:
I agree that a usuable turbofan was still quite a ways off but I think it could have been done in WW2

I will also agree that the P.1011 would have required better engines and the 163 was probably the closest they would have gotten to it.
__________________

US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006

Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes:

fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

"wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2"

"ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life"
DerAdlerIstGelandet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-24-2005, 08:00 PM   #471
Anonymous
 
Posts: n/a
But even the 163, upon forcing its way through the mach barrier, would have been torn apart. It takes titanium alloys to withstand such speeds, or at the very least, steel. Aluminum would get soft and collapse very quickly.

And remember, above mach speed, the air acts like a solid. There was no knowlege of how to control a plane flying through "butter".

=S=

Lunatic
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-25-2005, 10:48 AM   #472
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,556
The Me-163 was (most probably) unable to break Mach 1. It has a critical Mach speed of 0.84 and above that speed it pitched strongly down. (that happened a few times during the test program and in almost all serial Me-163 B was a warning sound and flashing light installes if they come close to its critical Mach speed) Even the X-4 proved that tailles planes were not suited for high transsonic/supersonic speeds after the war. I think the Me-P.1101 could come much closer (0.94), but it remains still debatable if the airframe could sustain such stress. There were at least 3 tries beside of manned A-4´s and Sängerplanes (which cannot be taken for that serious) to build a supersonic plane:
Horten Ho XIIIb: 60 degrees swept back wing (but very thick) with He-S011 and rocket assistance. The unpowered testbed Ho-XIIIa was build and flew, it was used to get informations about the low speed handling of such a wing design.
Lippisch P-13: A little similar to Horten but it has a deltawing (still the profile was too thick, it would generate too much drag at Mach 0.7-1.3)-
DFS 346: A supersonic testbed. 45 degrees swept back wings (very thin) and all metal design. Powered by two HWK-109 B rocket engines it developed 4000 Kp thrust (almost 8.800 lbs) and the whole design was geometrically well suited for breaking the sound barrier (comparable to X-1, but with smaller fuselage diameter and swept back wings with higher aspect ratio). Estimated speed: 2270 Km/h at 20.000 m (1400 mp/h = Mach 2.2 at 65000 ft.). Only the V-1-prototype was nearly finished at Siebel by VE-day. It is interesting that the US had no intentions for that plane, so they left it for the soviets. After some delays it was completed by Siebels for the soviets and in mid 1946 it was together with german pilots and technicians brought into the soviet union, where it was flown from early 1948-1951 (it has to be refittetd for two HWK 109A-1, since there were no .-109B in the USSR, two more planes were build under the name samoljet 346 "airplane 346"). Ziese inofficially did succed in breaking the sound barrier with this plane (however, the left wing broke at 60000ft. altitude maybe in this flight, but I´m unsure).
__________________
---delcyros---
delcyros is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-25-2005, 02:14 PM   #473
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,556
a few pictures of the DFS 346 (source: J. Dresser, M. Griehl, Die deutschen Raketenflugzeuge 1939-1945, 2nd edition (Augsburg 1999), page 89-92):
Compare also http:\\jpcolliat.free.fr/trident/trident-15.htm
or www.prototypes.com/Les intercepteurs ā moteur-fusée/XV. ANNEXE : le DFS 346
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 346_07_541.jpg (55.4 KB, 1068 views)
File Type: jpg 346_20_384.jpg (69.0 KB, 1068 views)
File Type: jpg 346_06_120.jpg (79.8 KB, 1068 views)
__________________
---delcyros---
delcyros is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-25-2005, 02:22 PM   #474
Senior Member
 
GermansRGeniuses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,043
Send a message via AIM to GermansRGeniuses Send a message via MSN to GermansRGeniuses
Quote:
Originally Posted by delcyros

DFS 346/Samoljet 346 with B-29 carrierplane

Tu-4, in reality, since the DFS is in Russian custody.
GermansRGeniuses is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-25-2005, 03:40 PM   #475
Master of Ewes
 
the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,956
Country:
Send a message via MSN to the lancaster kicks ass
and that's a B-17 in the pic not a B-29 isn't it??
__________________

"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
the lancaster kicks ass is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-26-2005, 05:54 AM   #476
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,556
Yes, Tu-4. (a soviet build licence B-29) I named that (incorectly) B-29 in order to credit it as an US design.
__________________
---delcyros---
delcyros is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-26-2005, 07:13 AM   #477
He who does not skim
 
Nonskimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,955
Country:
Send a message via MSN to Nonskimmer
The Tu-4 wasn't built under licence, it was copied from captured B-29's.
Nonskimmer is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-26-2005, 12:55 PM   #478
Anonymous
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonskimmer
The Tu-4 wasn't built under licence, it was copied from captured B-29's.
Damn right. In July 1944 several B-29's based in China were unable to make it all the way to their bases and landed on a Soviet base. The Russians refused to return the planes or aircrews (who were held as prisoners - though treated relatively well, until the end of the war), on the basis that the USSR was neutral w.r.t. the war against Japan.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/2...nian.cold.war/

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html

In my opinion, the USA should have demanded the immeadiate return of the Bombers and crews. Had the Soviets refused, the USA should immeadiately have cut off all Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets. Perhaps this should have been done without even making a demand. When the Soviets indicated their intentions to hold the bombers and crews, LL aid should have stopped, and then negotiations for return of the bombers should have been stalled till Germany was defeated. This would have been good for the USA, as it would have slowed Russia's progress against the Germans and made for a better post war position for the W. Allies. It also would have denied the Soviets much of their German technology captures, as the W. Allies would have occupied almost all of Germany proper.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-26-2005, 05:45 PM   #479
Senior Member
 
wmaxt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonskimmer
The Tu-4 wasn't built under licence, it was copied from captured B-29's.
Damn right. In July 1944 several B-29's based in China were unable to make it all the way to their bases and landed on a Soviet base. The Russians refused to return the planes or aircrews (who were held as prisoners - though treated relatively well, until the end of the war), on the basis that the USSR was neutral w.r.t. the war against Japan.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/2...nian.cold.war/

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html

In my opinion, the USA should have demanded the immeadiate return of the Bombers and crews. Had the Soviets refused, the USA should immeadiately have cut off all Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets. Perhaps this should have been done without even making a demand. When the Soviets indicated their intentions to hold the bombers and crews, LL aid should have stopped, and then negotiations for return of the bombers should have been stalled till Germany was defeated. This would have been good for the USA, as it would have slowed Russia's progress against the Germans and made for a better post war position for the W. Allies. It also would have denied the Soviets much of their German technology captures, as the W. Allies would have occupied almost all of Germany proper.

=S=

Lunatic
It's my understanding that to about mach 1.6 aluminum alloys are fine if the shape of the aircraft is correct. Using sweep and in early cases the area rule helped an aircraft to cross the sound barrier at least momentarily. One example was the F-86 that could in a dive exceed the speed of sound without special materials.

The trick to controlability was the use of the stabilator or flying stabilizer to allow pitch athority which is lost when a normal elevator is behind the Sonic shock wave on the stabilizer.

By Mach 2 materials like steel are required and titanium above mach 3 then it starts getting exotic with carbon-carbon etc.
wmaxt is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Old 03-26-2005, 08:40 PM   #480
Anonymous
 
Posts: n/a
Hmmm... It was my understanding that to sustain supersonic speed you needed to use superior alloys. Once over the sound barrier, heat will build up and makey duraluminum soft.

I agree, momentarily crossing the threshold would not imeadiately cause enough heat to cause a failure, but sustaining even Mach 1.1 for any length of time probably would. There's no real good way to vent the heat, the wing is not getting much airflow.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Closed Thread



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
   

AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101