Author Topic: 262 durability ? (Read 2510 times)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 09, 2002, 02:43:24 PM »

HoHun,

There are numerous sources that refer to the frailty of the Jumo 004.

I was lucky enough over the past 20 years to develop a friendship with a Battle of Britain vet and Supermarine test pilot by the name of Clive Gosling.

His second operational tour was with 616 squadron when they converted to Meteors in 44. In May of 45 he and his CO went to Fassburg to get a couple of 262s and fly them back to Lubeck. One of the things emphasized to him was the frailty of the engines. He was briefed by a German pilot prior to his flight. Engine life was less then 25 hours and the chance of in flight fires was high. In fact when starting up the 262 with the help of a German ground crew, one of the engines did catch fire. Standard procedure was for the ground crew to douse the engine with a fire extinguisher before trying again. He got it going and flew it back to Lubeck, checking it out along the way.

He described its take off roll as longer then a Meteor. Single engine flying speed was about 180. At high speed he said it 'snaked' like a Meteor, but in general felt 'solid'.

And of course it had a weak nose gear as his CO found out on landing on Lubeck when he collapsed the nose gear.

I can type up the text of the letter he wrote me way back when if you want the actual word for word on the flight. It's a four page typed letter from the mid 80s.

Or if you come across Hugh Morgan's Me262 Stormbird Rising, there is a shorter version from Mr. Gosling in that book.

Dan

HoHun · « **Reply #31 on:** July 09, 2002, 02:59:30 PM »

Hi Guppy,

>There are numerous sources that refer to the frailty of the Jumo 004.

You post is appreciated, but again, it aims at the reliability problems during normal flight operations, not at its ability to withstand battle damage. Note that the Allies had worse problems with that than the Germans since often, the planes' records were destroyed so that they had no way of knowing whether a Me 262 had fresh engines or whether it was grounded for overhaul. (Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" is quite interesting in that respect.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #32 on:** July 09, 2002, 03:02:19 PM »

Hi Chunder,

>Having seen first hand what a small steel bolt no larger than a 30cal bullet can do to a modern jet engine, I have no problem understanding how even a single armour-piercing 50cal round would be extremely hazardous to an engine's health.

On the other hand, with some background in jet engines, you're probably aware that they are recognized to be more survivable than piston engines? The question is not what could happen, but what is going to happen with which probability - and that's were jet engines win.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #33 on:** July 09, 2002, 03:06:10 PM »

Hi Charon,

>In fact Steinhoff himself was of the opinion that the jets should be employed against the escorting fighters. The bombers could then be attacked by conventional prop fighters.

There was a good tactical reason for this: The propeller-driven fighters were quite capable of taking on the bombers, but only the Me 262 had the performance to tackle vastly superior numbers of escort fighters with some chance of success. Calling the Me 262 "delicate" in that context sounds a lot like after-the-fact rationalization of Steinhoff's comment.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #34 on:** July 09, 2002, 03:15:01 PM »

Hi Akswulfe,

>You are telling me those compressor blades are more protected than an engine block?

I'm telling you that it's more difficult to kill a Jumo 004 than a contemporary piston engine.

It's a recognized fact that generally jet engines are more battle resistant than piston engines. The Jumo pictures you posted show very nicely that it had a very modern axial compressor of the kind that has become standard decades ago. I'd appreciate it if you'd decide whether you don't believe in the jet engine's inherent superiority when it comes to battle resistance, of whether you can find any special weakness of the Jumo 004 that makes it more damage-vulnerable than the jets that were patterned after it.

>The Jumo004 is one of the most compact engines, because they had to fit slung underneath a wing

The Jumo 004 appears to be one of the "most compact engines" because it's an axial-flow turbojet. That's the layout that quickly prevailed over the radial-flow turbojets initially favoured by the Allies. It did not have to fit slung underneath the wing, as Willy Messerschmitt himself favoured a wing-integral installation as realized by the Gloster Meteor until the small dimensions of the Jumo 004 were ascertained.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Voss · « **Reply #35 on:** July 09, 2002, 04:00:00 PM »

Engine performance, in Aces High, does not degrade with damage. This is contrary to the *real* physical world, but is most likely a gameplay issue. I have seen a Lear 35 engine ingest a 3mm screw and the result was awful. One .50 caliber bullet would have a greater *impact*, I'm sure.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #36 on:** July 09, 2002, 04:07:51 PM »

Jet engines, during the Korean war and up to today, may be able to take more damage and keep on ticking than piston engines... but then again, inline engines were able to take more damage in WWII than they could in WWI.

The fact that Germany had to use sub-standard materials to put the engine together shows why the engine had such a short life before having to be overhauled. Which should tell you, that if it's so prone to failures.... certainly a .50 cal slug won't be shrugged off lightly.

All it needed was to be hit forward of the compressor blades, and a .50 cal slug would get sucked into them. At the very least, debri would be sucked into the compressor blades... and that's the end of the story for that engine.

Before you mentioned something about the F86 and MiG-15... you are right, they had some very good engines that were very durable... Jet technology was brand spankin' new in WWII, which would explain the random failures of all jet engines and the relatively short life they had. How many hours of life did the jet engines of the Korean war last? A good more than 20, and this all relates back to durability... sorry, but you keep saying there's a difference between taking damage and engine life... I beg to differ when the engine is capable of destroying itself well before the engine life expectency is up.
-SW

Guppy35 · « **Reply #37 on:** July 09, 2002, 05:09:19 PM »

The records on the 262 in question are fairly clear. It was flown along with four other surviving 262s from Zatec to Fassburg by Lt. Dorn of 3/JG7 on May 8, 1945 It was Yellow 17, Wk.Nm 500210.

The German pilot who briefed Gosling before his flight and mentioned the engine concerns was Hans Frohlich of 2/KG(J)51. He had flown one of the other 262s from Zatec to Fassburg. Those five were the last operational 262s that operated against the Soviets prior to the capitulation. They were flown West for obvious reasons.

The frailty of the engines would clearly be a hinderance in combat. Kinda like the problems facing the 8th AF P38 pilots over Europe.

Was it not a failed engine that cost Walter Nowotney his life in a 262?

You mentioned Eric Brown's book. In his Viewed from the cockpit series that was printed in Air Enthusiast in the early 70s he mentions Messerschmitt Research Test Pilot Gerd Von Lindner as the person who filled him in on flying the 262. He also mentions Von Lindner's 'mistrust' of the Jumo 004 engines.

If you are going to play it out within the game, the chance of an engine failing or the nose gear collapsing on a 262 should probably be part of the deal. The ability of the engine to sustain damaged doesn't seem to me a seperate issue if the thing is apt to give out on its own anyway.

Using the comparison of the reliabilty of the F86 and Mig 15 engines in Korea doesn't fit in this case as well. There was a lot of time between the wars to get the reliabilty up on those engines, not the same as the wartime demands placed on the folks trying to get the 262 into action.

Dan

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,

>There are numerous sources that refer to the frailty of the Jumo 004.

You post is appreciated, but again, it aims at the reliability problems during normal flight operations, not at its ability to withstand battle damage. Note that the Allies had worse problems with that than the Germans since often, the planes' records were destroyed so that they had no way of knowing whether a Me 262 had fresh engines or whether it was grounded for overhaul. (Eric Brown's "Wings of the Luftwaffe" is quite interesting in that respect.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #38 on:** July 09, 2002, 05:56:22 PM »

Hi Guppy,

>The records on the 262 in question are fairly clear.

What I meant is just that the maintainance records for German planes often were destroyed before the capitulation so that British pilots couldn't judge the maintenance status of their prizes.

>The frailty of the engines would clearly be a hinderance in combat. Kinda like the problems facing the 8th AF P38 pilots over Europe.

I agree. But on the other hand, noone would call the Allison vulnerable to battle damage just because the USAAF had so many engine failures with the type.

>Was it not a failed engine that cost Walter Nowotney his life in a 262?

The cause of Nowotny's death was never finally resolved. Ethell and Price speculate that he was shot down by German AAA while being chased by two P-51s.

>Using the comparison of the reliabilty of the F86 and Mig 15 engines in Korea doesn't fit in this case as well. There was a lot of time between the wars to get the reliabilty up on those engines, not the same as the wartime demands placed on the folks trying to get the 262 into action.

The superiority of the jet engine to withstand battle damage is rooted in its operating principle. That's why Korea (actually, all jet combat experience) is a valid point of reference for WW2.

Battle damage has nothing to do with reliability against random failures, which is determined by production and materials quality. The Jumo 004 certainly was poor in that regard, but as the example of the P-38's turbo-supercharged Allison shows, it doesn't say anything about vulnerability against enemy fire.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #39 on:** July 09, 2002, 06:15:47 PM »

Hi Akswulfe,

>Jet technology was brand spankin' new in WWII, which would explain the random failures of all jet engines and the relatively short life they had.

There's no reason to speculate about the reason for the short life of German WW2 jet turbines: They were designed to be short-lived.

The original Jumo 004A engines in fact were long-lived - but they used scarce resources that weren't available for mass production, so the Jumo 004B was conceived to achieve the same power on more readily available materials.

>Which should tell you, that if it's so prone to failures.... certainly a .50 cal slug won't be shrugged off lightly.

With regard to its mechanical properties, the alloy of the turbine blades was very close to that used in the long-lived (and reliable) prototypes. Naturally: This had been the design goal.

If the blades hadn't withstood the stress, the Jumo 004B wouldn't have delivered the power. The downside was that the blades were subject to long-term deformation - but I'd not count a projectile impact as a long-term effect.

In short, there's no reason to assume the Jumo 004B was any more vulnerable to enemy fire than any other jet engine.

>All it needed was to be hit forward of the compressor blades, and a .50 cal slug would get sucked into them.

That's true for any jet engine, and still they are very hard to kill.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

whgates3 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 09, 2002, 09:07:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NOD2000
he didn't want to fly.......... he said he'd rather "die before i trust something that i can't work on by myself"

no offense intended, just some friendly needling

BaD kaRmA 158Th · « **Reply #41 on:** July 10, 2002, 10:29:32 PM »

I saw on the history chan, it was an old ww2 german pilot talking about the 262.

one of the things i remember was him saying a simple powering down and quick powering up of the throtel would exsplode the engines..because they were to finiky.

And this was true...imagine dumping a crap load of fule into an empty chanmber..a highly flamable liqued..boom.

unlike a piston engi if you did that it would maby sputer a quick second..but them instantly get upto speed.

hell the f-86 sabre had problems like this also.

Also guys its for game play..that p-51 pilot as you put it was LUCKY to get a shot..and you wanna know why? its cause you were goin' fregin' 500mph...so for game play sakes the 262 HAD to be made weak..because if it was THAT strong..we would never down one unless the pilot flew stupidly into a hail of gun fire..and most head to head servers disable the 262.
for that reason..ever been hit with a 30mm round..even one hits your la-7's wing and its GONE.
So your fast..you hit hard...you die fast.
there slower..they hit softer..they die faster.
Id be pissed if a 262 could take as much pounding as a p-40 or la-7 "iv taken' so much dmg in that plane..left wing tip..bolth landing gear up front..engi blown...and half my left vertical stabalizer..and i think my flaps..and i belly landed it on my runway going about 130..Im comein' in..everyone move!..scraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape.
*ejects*..whew..all in a days work.

its all about the game play.

Glasses · « **Reply #42 on:** July 11, 2002, 12:23:56 AM »

Well regarding the History channel back in 1998 they used to show history programs with accurate accounts now they just play on the myths people seem to like to hear, I guess they were short on ratings. Though I wouldn't disregard the History channel program about 262 entirely but I wouldn't take it to heart either. They mix many things that are questionable and ommit them too.

Karnak · « **Reply #43 on:** July 11, 2002, 01:43:21 AM »

I pretty much dismiss everything I hear on the History Channel. I can find so many mistakes it thier stuff, and I'm only an amatuer historian with an unfinished BA in history.

Angus · « **Reply #44 on:** July 12, 2002, 06:17:14 AM »

HoHun: you may like the LW stuff, but this is getting too far I think:D
I never heard or read before that the 262 engines were hard to destroy by gunfire. On the contrary, they were the soft spot of the aircraft. And engaging bombers from 6 o clock, where is the point of entry from the .50 cal bullets but into the front!!
Maybe that's why Steinhoff rather wanted to tackle the escorts?