262 durability ?

[Angus]

Well, Rram, they don't really. However......:
A-10 has the engines mounted above the tailplane to shield them from enemy fire as well as making the engine exhaust a worse infra-red source from below. It can easily be flown on one engine, but damage/failiure to both engines will naturally bring it down, - for that it is designed to be a forgiving belly lander.
Now a brand new design, The SU-32:
"The crew¹s cabin has been designed in the shape of a single titanium bronze capsule, the construction of which was perfected on an Su-25 low-flying attack aircraft. There is defensive armour on the fuel tank, the engines and other vitally important parts of the aircraft. "
Speaking of SU's, the SU25 "Frogfoot" has engine armament and is known to have suvived hits from stinger missiles.
Now the F16 and the F15 are no close support aircraft, so a totally different design. They rarely return from a mission with bullet holes. In a dogfight however, they could be hit, presumably from the high 6, where the F15's entire wing section is over the engines, and the Fuselage of the F16.
hmmm, Rram, I don't know.

[HoHun]

Hi Angus,

>Speaking of SU's, the SU25 "Frogfoot" has engine armament and is known to have suvived hits from stinger missiles.

Actually, the decisive part of armour of the Sukhoi Su-25 is a shield between the engines so that catastrophic damage to one engine can't spread to the other one. This shield was added as the result of Afghanistan experience when damage from Stinger missiles could take out both engines even if only one was hit.

In short, protecting the engines against each other proved more important than protecting the engines against enemy fire.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Angus]

yup HoHun.
That's because there is two of them.
(one as a backup)

[udet]

I shot down a 262 once with the 2 &.62mm machine guns in the 109F. Took less time and ammo than I expected.

[BUG_EAF322]

In peace time jet engines are more reliable
It's a fine precion thing working under high revs

a litlle crack or a different composite alloy from the metal fins could do great damage to the engine and let it blow up easy

[Glasses]

Angus apparently you have not seen pics from F15Es returning from NOE missions  over in Iraq in 1991 during the Gulf War.

You'd be surprised at the number of bullet holes the thing had when they landed.

[MadBirdCZ]

Some of you say that jet engines are durable some of you say they are not. Some of you say 262 was durable in RL, some of you say it was pretty fragile.

And even some of you say that 262s in AH are udermodeled (when talking about DM) knowingly and on purpose.

Well if the fragility of 262 in AH is intentional then I say: Cut the price of 262 to half and stop the whining

All of you know that when you fly 262 then every plane you meet starts spraying in your general direction hoping for random lucky hit that will most likely knock a piece of your plane off...

Good pilots will make kills in a undermodeled plane anyway and stupids will die as they do right now too. I think engine fragility in 262 we have is OK but I also think that the airframe is a bit too fragile... even few pings from .50 at distance over 1k knock wingtips airleons etc... But thats prolly because .50s are tank busting bullets (i still keep forgeting about this fact)

[Smut]

I'm pretty surprised that no one has really disputed the "jet engines are more durable than piston engines in combat" claim yet. Guess there are no suck and blow techs in AH.

The late war radial engines were far, far more durable than any jet engine will ever be. Period. Many documented cases exist were radials continued to operate with entire pistons shot off, for example.

Jet engines still need oil to run, in fact because of the high RPM's and close clearances oil is critical.

Bullet holes in the engine casing aft of the turbines will cause hot air leakage that almost always will result in a fire (even in modern engines).

As many have pointed out, "FOD" (foreign object damage) is death to a jet engine, even today. Basically anything going down the intakes (bullets, shrapnel, birds, whatever) will result is serious, possibly catastrophic engine damage.

The only western jet that I am aware of that has “armored” engine bays is the A-10, which can withstand up to a 23mm hit if memory serves. Most modern jet engine cases are made from titanium, but that is more for high heat / low weight reasons, and certainly not intended as “armor”.

-Smut

[HoHun]

Hi Smut,

>The late war radial engines were far, far more durable than any jet engine will ever be. Period.

Hm, I think I'd like to see some evidence supporting that claim if you happen to have some.

The Korean war jets - both MiGs and Sabres alike - were very tough. In Vietnam, the Navy replaced the radial-engined Skyraiders that were flying in the highly dangerous ground-attack role were replaced by jet-engined Skyhawks. The Air Force replaced their radial-engined B-26 Invaders who were mainly threatened by ground fire as well with jet-engined B-57B Canberras. (One of the rare instances were Navy and Air Force agreed on something :-)

>Many documented cases exist were radials continued to operate with entire pistons shot off, for example.

Many documented cases exist where jet engines operated with no pistons at all ;-) I understand what you're aiming at, but I'm afraid damaged pistons are not a useful point of reference.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[john9001]

"""Many documented cases exist where jet engines operated with no pistons at all """

gee, i always thought if a jet lost it's pistons it was done for the day, shows how dumb i am.

[Roscoroo]

the Jumo's along with any other non titanium combustion cased Engine , along with balancing factors and air density's vs fuel flow vs internal temps (alias hot spots) made early jet engines very fragile. anything injested by the engine would create a failure, along with improper handling of the throttles.
 There is also compressor stalls and shifts to think about to, and the fact that a cracked blade will most likely break and ruin the whole engine.

As for the Jet engine being more durable and withstanding hits   then a piston engine . it is not ,
The jet is faster , the engines are a smaller target to hit .(from most angles of attack)
 The piston engine can break a con rod, valve ,have a magnito fail , ect. and will still run for sometime.

btw the A-10 wasnt the only plane with armor plates around their engines. ( I've handled plenty of bullit riddled Armor on the T-64's engines in HH-53's when i was in the service)

One more point to add jet engine planes have not seen the type of combat as the WW2 planes saw . (how many times did B-52's get straffed by the masses ?)

so in closing here .. you can toss rocks at a piston engine ,but can you toss rocks at a jet engine ???? Do I need to Say more ?

Jet Engine mechanic U.S.A.F  1982-86  
 "If it wasnt for the jet we would never have to do F.O.D walks"

[HoHun]

Hi Roscoroo,

>anything injested by the engine would create a failure, along with improper handling of the throttles. There is also compressor stalls and shifts to think about to, [...]

Well, I think this is only very remotely connected to the question of survivability.

>and the fact that a cracked blade will most likely break and ruin the whole engine.

I just read about one (civilian) aircraft with the big radial engines which recently had a rod break, ruining the whole engine. Catastropic damage is always a possiblity.

>The jet is faster , the engines are a smaller target to hit .(from most angles of attack)

I think this is called susceptibilty, and it has an objective and direct influence on survivability.

>One more point to add jet engine planes have not seen the type of combat as the WW2 planes saw . (how many times did B-52's get straffed by the masses ?)

True for the B-52s, but aircraft like the A-4, the B-57 or even the F-100 in the FAC role had to deal with old-fashioned ground fire from projectile weapons mainly. And the MiGs in Korea certainly were strafed by WW2-type guns (only firing much faster and with a denser pattern) and still proved very tough.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Roscoroo]

sometimes i get alittle carried away  ...  the original question is ME 262's durability .  in combat   vs  a prop job .

here is a cool jet engine sim program if you dare to create  a Jumo type jet engine and test it , it has different alloy types for each section of the engine , and you can play to your hearts content.....  its a fun program btw  

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/ngnsim.html

[HoHun]

Hi Roscoroo,

>sometimes i get alittle carried away ... the original question is ME 262's durability . in combat vs a prop job .

Since it couldn't be established that the Jumo 004B was more vulnerable than an average jet engine, Smut raised the question whether jet engines in general do indeed compare favourably to piston engines.

I think this is a good approach, and as you were contributing to the investigation of this question, please don't think you got carried away :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Roscoroo]

Now I'm going to add the Stormbirds website to this discussion for All the Guys/Gals to Read . For they are the most knowledgeable People on the ME262 . (they are Building Real ME262's there but using General Electric J-85's instead of  Jumo's)

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/technical/technical.htm

As For The Jumo being durable in combat . It just wasnt possiable at that time .The substandard of metals used in the Jumo's and a Life of 10-20 hours .providing they didnt shell out on start-up basically says volumnes about the quality/ reliability of the Jumo.

Also the Russian Mig Engines Pre 70's  were not a very reliable either. (the non use of titanium gave them a very short life under Mil. throttle settings)

Todays Jet Engines  get run tested befor installation on an aircraft. Your not going to hear about them shelling out because of this on aircraft .
 the average jet engine usually gets overhauled at 10,000 hours,with the compressor section getting overhauled at 30,000 hrs  ,
So if we compare todays jet engine to piston engines we find that yes it is way more reliable . But back in the 40's and early 50's  the piston engine was way more reliable . as for in combat most of you never heard of how many jet engines were changed out after landing ( alot more then piston engines )
A vibration would be cause for removal of a jet engine , and in a piston engine a vibration ussually ment you needed to change a spark bolt.

Well I had a great post here until my 1 1/2 year old copilot came by and hit the reset button on my PC and I lost my chain of thought , but I find this discussion alot better them most of the garbage on these boards   All