michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Also the p80. I believe 3 were stationed in Italy several months before wars end and actually flew some missions although they never encountered any enemy aircraft.
Easiest Warbird to Fly?
- Thread starter Ronald-Reagan
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
If they were intended to operate in direct combat, like the Meteor and Me262, yes. The Aircomet, maybe not.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
swampyankee,
I'm sure the intent was there....we just fell a little short with the execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike,
I didn't realize the P80 was operational that early (also, I was thinking I'd forgotten to mention the Me 163, but it was a rocket, so it doesn't really qualify, technically).
Anyway, very interesting.
I know there was one at Itami AFB in Japan in 1946, because my dad was there then and took some pictures of it.
Elvis
I'm sure the intent was there....we just fell a little short with the execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike,
I didn't realize the P80 was operational that early (also, I was thinking I'd forgotten to mention the Me 163, but it was a rocket, so it doesn't really qualify, technically).
Anyway, very interesting.
I know there was one at Itami AFB in Japan in 1946, because my dad was there then and took some pictures of it.
Elvis
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Lockheed YP-80 Shooting Stars in flight near Vesuvio, Italy 1945. SN 44-83028, 44-83029.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Bachem Ba 349 Natter. Just sit back and enjoy the flight.
Skyediamonds
Staff Sergeant
- 1,082
- May 26, 2018
Gentlemen,
To one & all, I stand corrected. Let's include jets as part of a list to debate on the merits of what is determined as the easiest warbird to fly. To me personally, only reason the jets were not considered was my own attendance to various air shows & air races (Full disclosure: I live in Reno, NV; home of the pylon air races). Anytime the word "warbird" was mentioned they always had piston powered aircraft -usually of the fighter category- in the display area or during the show or races. If jets were included, the announcer always classified them separately as "jets." So it would only be natural for me to simply accept the general consensus of what was defined as "warbird" & "jets." The same can be said during my attendance to the EAA AirVenture where 10,000 plus aircraft were flown in. Everyone would classify "warbird" & "jets" the same way.
Having accepted this: other than carefully monitoring the exhaust temperatures & avoiding rapid throttle movements, would warbird jets be easiest to fly?
To one & all, I stand corrected. Let's include jets as part of a list to debate on the merits of what is determined as the easiest warbird to fly. To me personally, only reason the jets were not considered was my own attendance to various air shows & air races (Full disclosure: I live in Reno, NV; home of the pylon air races). Anytime the word "warbird" was mentioned they always had piston powered aircraft -usually of the fighter category- in the display area or during the show or races. If jets were included, the announcer always classified them separately as "jets." So it would only be natural for me to simply accept the general consensus of what was defined as "warbird" & "jets." The same can be said during my attendance to the EAA AirVenture where 10,000 plus aircraft were flown in. Everyone would classify "warbird" & "jets" the same way.
Having accepted this: other than carefully monitoring the exhaust temperatures & avoiding rapid throttle movements, would warbird jets be easiest to fly?
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Nice pic, Flyboy.
If I ever find those pictures my dad took, I will post them here.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen them in years.
Elvis
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Having flown both, the jets are easier, "carefully monitoring the exhaust temperatures & avoiding rapid throttle movements" IMO is greatly exaggerated.
FBJ,
I agree. However I would bet there were some improvements made to the T-bird along the way for reliability.
Cheers,
Biff
GregP
Major
According to the pilots who speak at our monthly events at the Planes of Fame, the engines in the YP-59A / P-59A/B were VERY sensitive to over-throttle. They say that too much throttle would pool jet fuel in the belly that would ignite on startup and result in flames coming out of the jet exhaust. This was especially not-good on the YP-59A since the elevators were fabric!
I would imagine that the P-80s that made squadron service a bit later were much-improved over the YP-59A, so Jow would be correct in it being overstated. but the VERY early ones were apparently somewhat persnickety about abrupt throttle movement. I cannot say from personal experience, but my bet is that we'll likely find out in the next year or two when we expect our YP-59A to fly again!
In the book "Flame Powered, The Story of the Bell P-59, " there are a couple of pics of a YP-59A with flames coming out of the pipes. That is what KILLED the early turbine blades. Hopefully, we won't have those issues since our pilots are aware of it and KNOW there are no more engines lying around as spares! Actually, we have ONE spare, but that's it.
I would imagine that the P-80s that made squadron service a bit later were much-improved over the YP-59A, so Jow would be correct in it being overstated. but the VERY early ones were apparently somewhat persnickety about abrupt throttle movement. I cannot say from personal experience, but my bet is that we'll likely find out in the next year or two when we expect our YP-59A to fly again!
In the book "Flame Powered, The Story of the Bell P-59, " there are a couple of pics of a YP-59A with flames coming out of the pipes. That is what KILLED the early turbine blades. Hopefully, we won't have those issues since our pilots are aware of it and KNOW there are no more engines lying around as spares! Actually, we have ONE spare, but that's it.
Skyediamonds
Staff Sergeant
- 1,082
- May 26, 2018
Only mentioned the cautious approach to operating jet engines based upon my reading of the early jets, particularly the Jumo 004 on the Messerschmitt-262. There were several articles over a period of time where the Jumos had an extremely short life expectancy before overhaul. Flameouts were considered common. Am I correct here? Insofar as GE jet engines powering the P-80, I'm assuming they too were going through their early teething problems. I'm keeping in mind this is during the Second World War period when the jet engines were just beginning to make their debut in the Aviation world. No doubt as time went on, the jets improved in their reliability & performance. Personally, I have no experience operating jets other than starting an old J-33 jet engine that was inside a T-33 from my A&P school days, so I'll go by what Flyboy & others have to say. It seems however this discussion is heading towards jets as being tge easiest to fly. P-80?
Skyediamonds
Staff Sergeant
- 1,082
- May 26, 2018
GregP,
I totally agree with everything you've mentioned about the early jet engines, especially as it pertains to the Bell YP-59A. However, I'd like to add that the (late) Paul Allen's Historical Aviation Collection in Seattle had their original Jumos to the Me-262 upgraded with modern alloys in the turbine section & I'm sure other areas of interest were addressed to account for throttle movements while still maintaining the integrity of originality to the whole engine/airframe. Are the folks such as Steve Hinton & Planes of Fame Co., going to take a similar route & have the original jet engines upgraded with modern plasma-coated alloys? By the way, in keeping to the topic of this discussion, has anyone read anything on the flying characteristics of the Bell? How would it compare to say the P-80 or Me-262, or the Gloster 28/39?
I totally agree with everything you've mentioned about the early jet engines, especially as it pertains to the Bell YP-59A. However, I'd like to add that the (late) Paul Allen's Historical Aviation Collection in Seattle had their original Jumos to the Me-262 upgraded with modern alloys in the turbine section & I'm sure other areas of interest were addressed to account for throttle movements while still maintaining the integrity of originality to the whole engine/airframe. Are the folks such as Steve Hinton & Planes of Fame Co., going to take a similar route & have the original jet engines upgraded with modern plasma-coated alloys? By the way, in keeping to the topic of this discussion, has anyone read anything on the flying characteristics of the Bell? How would it compare to say the P-80 or Me-262, or the Gloster 28/39?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Here's my take - define "overthrottle." Are you gently moving the "power levers" forward in a smooth motion, or slamming them against the stops? Here's a video that shows a German training film, about half way through the clip watch the way the pilot is moving the power levers HD Stock Video Footage - German pilot flying a ME-262 aircraft in Germany as instructors observe
Skyediamonds
Staff Sergeant
- 1,082
- May 26, 2018
GregP writes during their monthly meetings at Planes of Fame, pilots would report that early jet engines on the Bell P-59 series, that too much throttle would pool jet fuel in the belly that would ignite during startups causing flames to come out of the exhaust. I'm having a little bit of trouble wrapping my mind around that one. Could you clarify?
Fuel should not pool up in the belly of the aircraft but rather in the "belly" of the combustion chambers of the engines themselves. This would make more sense, especially the lower combustion chambers as the early jets would have individual chambers or "cannula" chambers mounted around the engine. The annular chambers came later.
Insofar as fuel pooling up, my guess it would be most likely oil rather than fuel. Almost all jet engines have a positive oil displacement pump. This means so long as the engine is spinning (compressor & turbine sections), regardless of whether it's running or not, the driveshaft connected to the oil pump via a system of gears is also spinning & thus, the oil pump itself continues to pump oil into various parts of the engine particularly the bearings. To shut down a jet engine entails shutting off the fuel flow. However, the engine would continue to rapidly spool (spin) & the oil pump continues to pump oil but it's the oil that settles into the lower chambers. This is why we see that telltale puff of smoke on modern jet engines during startups.
Fuel should not pool up in the belly of the aircraft but rather in the "belly" of the combustion chambers of the engines themselves. This would make more sense, especially the lower combustion chambers as the early jets would have individual chambers or "cannula" chambers mounted around the engine. The annular chambers came later.
Insofar as fuel pooling up, my guess it would be most likely oil rather than fuel. Almost all jet engines have a positive oil displacement pump. This means so long as the engine is spinning (compressor & turbine sections), regardless of whether it's running or not, the driveshaft connected to the oil pump via a system of gears is also spinning & thus, the oil pump itself continues to pump oil into various parts of the engine particularly the bearings. To shut down a jet engine entails shutting off the fuel flow. However, the engine would continue to rapidly spool (spin) & the oil pump continues to pump oil but it's the oil that settles into the lower chambers. This is why we see that telltale puff of smoke on modern jet engines during startups.
