262 durability ?

[HoHun]

Hi Angus,

>HoHun: you may like the LW stuff, but this is getting too far I think:D

Well, you're invited to provide information that shows I'm wrong :-)

However, you can't judge the toughness of the plane by quotes like "I shot at it until the engine exploded." Shoot at any plane long enough, and some part will fail - a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. For each story like that, there might be many unpublished records saying "I shot at it with no result", or even "I shot at it and missed" though in fact the engine was hit without taking visible damage.

That's why to establish that the Jumo 004B was inferior in survibability, we'd need a precise reason for that. Lacking this reason, it's safe to assume it was a typical jet engine with regard to battle damage,  and jet engines have proven to be very survivable.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Karnak]

HoHun,

It is the resposibility of the person claiming that things are not as perceived to provide the information to back up that claim.

The long standing belief is that the 262's engines were very fragile, therefore you need to provide information that counters this.  You have not done so.  Until you do, nobody will agree with you.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Karnak

The long standing belief is that the 262's engines were very fragile

Actually...

Here you are making a claim yourself. And it is up to you to substantiate it.

[Karnak]

[Hortlund]

Oh I see, the "It is the resposibility of the person claiming that things are not as perceived to provide the information to back up that claim. " -part only applies to others...When you post something, that should immideately be recognized as a fact?

[SageFIN]

If we can agree that jet engines are more survivable than piston engines, then Ho-Hun has a very valid point. So far no one has come up with any bulletproof explanation on why Jumo's should be an exception and be more fragile than jet engines in general.

[Karnak]

Sure we have.  The toejamty materials in the Jumo make it much more fragile.  Slight damage stands a very good chance of prompting the Jumo to tear itself apart.  The freakin' thing had a tendacy to do that on its own.  Add some rapidly moving chunks of metal and it only worsens the Jumo's chances.

[RRAM]

They weren't "lovely materials" , karnak. The alloys used couldn't stand the prolonged wear and temperatures of a long running jet engine,so the components suffered a long run DEFORMATION (not a breaking of components) wich caused malfunction and/or fires.

 That doesn't mean the engine was made of toejam, or paper. The alloys used were all metallic, and they were as durable against instantaneous shock damage (as a bullet hitting) as any other alloy which could have been used had germany had the proper resources.

So stop the "lovely materials" argument because is simply baseless to the point in discussion here.

[Montezuma]

Let's not forget that great slave labor craftsmanship either...

[GRUNHERZ]

Actually I never heard of Jumos blowing up with acceleration, what did happend was them flaming out. This was a common problem for all early jets AFAIK.

In fact I have never heard of them "blowing up" at all but I have heard of their very short overhaul time of 10-20 hours.

Perhaps all this random blowing up stuff was based on a mixup of the Me262 with the Me163 which had this problem early on, but even that was resolved for the Me163 when in service.

Now I dont know if the jumo was any more succeptible to instantaneus damage than any other early jet engine. The "lovely materials" is always used in reference to long term longevity not instanteneus toughness.  

I dont have enough expereience with the Me262 in Ah to say the engines are ok or not.

But I do think the airframe, wings tail etc are awfully fragile. I have never read anything to say Me262 had weak airframe except the collapsing nosewheel.  

If you dont find that agreeable Karnak well go find counter info on Me262 airframe fragility.

Anyway I hate flying Me262 in AH and feel I have better chance of getting kills and RTB in a Bf109G6. I just know it better.

[Kweassa]

I think what Hohun is trying to say is the three issues concerning the Jumo004 - "Projected engine life"  "Engine reliability against random failures"   "Resistance to battle damage" - are all different things and should not be confused.

 Karnak and Guppy keeps confusing the three, and Swulfe somehow naturally assumes since "Projected engine life" and "Engine reliability against random failures" sucked on the Jumo, the "Resistance to battle damage" part would suck, too.

 I don't think Hohun is trying to say jet engines would survive a barrage of 8x.50s at 50 yards or something. Just that our natural assumption in the way "oh hey, a bullet gets sucked into the engine. It's gonna blow up" is misguided.

 I wouldn't know, I'm a total layman. My first impression to this thread was - "hmm.. I've also heard the jet engines were pretty frail. And to think something would be sucked into those turbines.. that's gotta cause a huge damage, right?".

 But come to think of it, I heard those things going around, but I can't specify any kind of source. I assume a bullet sucked into a turbine will kill it, but I don't know why... and so far, from what I have read in this thread, nobody disagreeing with Hohun came up with something enough that should answer to the big "why?".

 This is very interesting read.. carry on guys!

ps) Since so many other people who have posted previously in these sort of threads have stated "pilot anecdotes" and "rare instances and claims" mean nothing, and objective chart, report, data, source is needed to confirm things, I think that sort of cancels out about 70% of arguments made here. Speaking objectively, that is.

[NOD2000]

u know what a chart or writin record is?

its something that the pilots said and was written down............... that was made officail by a guy that had no clue cuz he wasn't there so a pilots story is just as valid as a peice of paper

[Kweassa]

[LuftWhiner Mode On]

 Nod2000, try saying that in some of the other simular type of threads - for example, the discussions concerning the power and trajectory of Hispano cannons in AH that happened way back. Or some discussions concerning how some planes like the Spit9 or N1K2 rarely feel serious torque in AH, and regained low speed maneuverability much too quick. It seemed awfully clear in those posts that "what the pilots say" don't count as "hard evidence".

 

 [LuftWhiner Mode Off]

 Seriously though, I think what the pilots say should have some depth in these matters - but only as supplementary points. I've seen a lot of "pilot claims" that were refuted by careful analysis and research, and the general AH critics seem to agree on "don't believe all they say". Besides, I don't think pilots were exactly engineers and knew how a jet engine would work.

 I think a pilot's stories are as much valid as they can afford to be - stories; some truths, some exaggerations, some lies.

[Angus]

Are jet engines generally more resilient against a hail of gunfire than Piston engines, or not? I think they are not, however it is possibly easier to bury a jet engine behind armour than a Piston engine...hmm. Well, look at modern fighters, do they have externally mounted engines...hell, no, they really bury them within the central section. (Mind you that the reason why is probably more aerodynamic, bringing an armour possibility as a bonus).
So, Were the engines of the 262 armoured? Nope, not in any way, actually just the windscreen and the Pilot seat was armoured, since the main idea behind the design was that speed should keep this aircraft out of harms way.
So, we have a lightly armoured jet, with "naked" jet engines hanging under the wings. Good or bad service durability of engines, or genarally materials do not really matter, I still can't see how you can figure out that its durable at all

[RRAM]

which kind of armor does the F16 carry around its engine?  or a F15?

or the A10 (one of the thoughest planes flying today?).

well. All I say, is LOL ,angus