mustang__1

ME109 "jet" (thanks CNN) found in Denmark

Recommended Posts

so aside from the laugh courtesy of CNN's ineptness, this is pretty amazing:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/europe/denmark-wwii-plane-trnd/index.html

 

nat geo cites it as a 109: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/wwii-nazi-plane-denmark/

 

wouldn't think airplanes would still be turning up after all this time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two dainish coins and three unused condoms. The guy was an optimist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most pilots are.........just wonder what his last thought was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Oh Shit" most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two dainish coins and three unused condoms. The guy was an optimist

 

Back then he was a catch no matter what language he spoke....

 

To this day I am surprised I haven't had an Australian half bother or sister knock on my door...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Maj Kong was right

 

(Edited for relevance)

- One hundred dollars in rubles

... ...

- One issue of prophylactics...

 

Shoot a fella could have a pretty good time in Copenhagen with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What do you suppose the last thing to pass through his mind was?"

"Probably the windscreen....."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't think airplanes would still be turning up after all this time...

 

Its not very unusual. If a fighter spears in from 20,000 feet it will probably go deep. Pilot remains are more unusual, since an effort was usually made to recover them, but it happens. By no means unknown for pilot's coffins to contain a few sandbags to make up to a reasonable weight, in which case body parts may be found in a crash where the pilot's body had been recorded as recovered.

 

Crash/wreck recovery is an active hobby in the UK, there are quite a few groups that do it. There have been a few featured on Time Team:

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team/on-demand/27818-003?intcmp=video_link:bip_ondemand:episodes

 

http://laituk.org/Time%20Team.htm

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team/on-demand/25721-008?intcmp=video_link:bip_ondemand:episodes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you consider the 10's of thousands of planes that went down it shouldn't be surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they built 33,000 i bet there weren't many still flying at the end of the war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did the kid get an A on the assignment or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Two dainish coins and three unused condoms. The guy was an optimist

 

Back then he was a catch no matter what language he spoke....

 

To this day I am surprised I haven't had an Australian half bother or sister knock on my door...

 

FATHER?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going to find planes from that war for more than a hundred years. The scale, tempo & duration of air operations put many, many pilots into the ground. Remember, all those planes were totally analog, - no avionics, with reciprocating engines run at war time settings, loaded to the hilt with stuff that goes boom.

 

They still find unexploded ordinance (bombs) in European construction excavation on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going to find planes from that war for more than a hundred years. The scale, tempo & duration of air operations put many, many pilots into the ground. Remember, all those planes were totally analog, - no avionics, with reciprocating engines run at war time settings, loaded to the hilt with stuff that goes boom.

 

They still find unexploded ordinance (bombs) in European construction excavation on a regular basis.

 

no no, they had avionics/navionics. primitive but for the most part a lot of it hasn't changed for keeping sky above the canopy and the ground below your feet. I still fly with vacuum gauges. navigation has changed a good bit though.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going to find planes from that war for more than a hundred years. The scale, tempo & duration of air operations put many, many pilots into the ground. Remember, all those planes were totally analog, - no avionics, with reciprocating engines run at war time settings, loaded to the hilt with stuff that goes boom.

 

They still find unexploded ordinance (bombs) in European construction excavation on a regular basis.

 

From WW 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that so many of the parts are still so clearly recognizeable. The condition of the crankshaft bull gear and supercharger compressor wheel shown in the photos tells me the engine wasn't turning when it hit the ground. Hopefully the young man was dead beforehand, as well.

 

Daimler_DB_605_cutaway.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody know the reason why their engine was inverted?

 

Presumably there was a very good reason for it but it sure is counter intuitive.

 

Also, what are those ring gear things at the bottom (top?) of the cylinders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two dainish coins and three unused condoms. The guy was an optimist

 

I saw that and chuckled. I'm just glad he wasn't carrying any used condoms around with him....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was about a barn find 109, now that would be something. I've always wondered if there's a warbird like that out there somewhere still. Highly unlikely I know.

 

It happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought it was about a barn find 109, now that would be something. I've always wondered if there's a warbird like that out there somewhere still. Highly unlikely I know.

 

It happens

 

 

And they're for sale too

 

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1430233/messerschmitt-me-109

 

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1419149/1944-north-american-p-51-mustang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Two dainish coins and three unused condoms. The guy was an optimist

 

Back then he was a catch no matter what language he spoke....

 

To this day I am surprised I haven't had an Australian half bother or sister knock on my door...

 

FATHER?!

;)

 

 

Yeuppp...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was about a barn find 109, now that would be something. I've always wondered if there's a warbird like that out there somewhere still. Highly unlikely I know.

 

I've seen some really strange stories about that sort of thing.

 

A wing of P-38's ran out of gas and landed on the Greenland ice cap. They were abandoned and some years back an expedition went looking for them. Found them over 100' down in the ice cap. Tunneled down and salvaged one or some of them - dug out a cave and a big chute down to it then disassembled the thing(s) and hauled them up.

 

Another was a B-29 that landed way up in northern Canada - Labrador or some place. It was completely intact on it's wheels and they worked on site to make it airworthy enough to fly out. They started one or more engines but the dummies didn't have any fire extinguishers so when the engine caught fire the plane burned to the ground.

 

The B-29 was a TV show but IIRC the P-38 story was Nat Geo mag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what are those ring gear things at the bottom (top?) of the cylinders?

 

Part of the cylinder sleeve/liner. Maybe hobbed the shoulder to save a little weight?

 

5b3h90.jpg

 

Interesting also that there doesn't appear to have been a fire, from what I can tell. Pilot basically sat on top of the ME-109's fuel tank. Hmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heartbreaking loss of that B-29 was due to an unsecured aux power unit ( a generator ) in the tail. After 2 seasons of back-breaking work, as they were trying to taxi it for takeoff/escape from the tundra. It is excruciating to watch. Imagine the gumption to get those four, famously cantankerous engines running after 70 years sitting.

 

By "Avionics" I simply meant they didn't have squat for what the modern aviator enjoys for navigation. In those single-seaters there was one busy guy trying to juggle a knee-board, radio, his aircraft and, you know - not get shot. What I was trying to get at is the weather and other operating losses were also brutal - as well as the significant threat environment. For example, in the Aleutians they lost more planes to weather than the Japanese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wing of P-38's ran out of gas and landed on the Greenland ice cap. They were abandoned and some years back an expedition went looking for them. Found them over 100' down in the ice cap. Tunneled down and salvaged one or some of them - dug out a cave and a big chute down to it then disassembled the thing(s) and hauled them up.

 

Glacier Girl... on the rocks

 

P-38-600x391.jpg

 

In the air

 

P-38_Lightning_head-on.jpg

 

Whole story here

 

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/glacier-girl-the-back-story-19218360/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody know the reason why their engine was inverted?

 

Presumably there was a very good reason for it but it sure is counter intuitive.

 

Also, what are those ring gear things at the bottom (top?) of the cylinders?

 

More streamlined fuselage. Look at pictures of later spitfires. They have a pair of humps over the cylinder banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, you can put a big honkin' canon on top of the block and fire it right through the (gear-driven) propeller. With Fuel injection it didn't matter ( the orientation of the V ). Only oddity was potential leak-down of oil into a cylinder if the rings all lined up - just like on a radial, which is one reason they would "pull them through" a couple times before starting.

 

And still, just like my K75s, if left on the side-stand very long, start-up could be a bit smoky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine the gumption to get those four, famously cantankerous engines running after 70 years sitting.

 

 

No kidding. They have a cutaway of one of those Wasp Major's at McMinnville. The most insanely complicated machine I think I have ever seen.

 

28 cylinders in 4 rows, 4 valves per cylinder, 2 plugs per cylinder, turbocharged and supercharged.

 

And they had 4 of them to get running without even a shade tree to work under. ;) 112 cylinders, 224 spark plugs, 448 valves. :blink:

 

6847964719_8f8c97457a_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is something for you ( gear heads ) to consider:

 

Pre-war, the US air corps wasn't buying planes at a great rate, so the flying that was done generally was done with some sympathy to the engines (who knows when they'll be replaced) - come combat, the throttles get fire-walled and there were a LOT of engine overheating issues.

 

More performance also means more heat - at some point you can consider any engine a pump. Put air and fuel IN, get work and heat OUT. Want more 'work' - add more fuel and air, and dissipate more heat.

 

The air-cooled cylinder heads went from cast, with cast-in fins, to sleeved inserts, to (eventually, as on that R-2800 ) a cast iron cylinder with 56 separate, press-fit aluminum fins on EACH cylinder... fuuuuuuuuuck.....

 

They (reportedly) had a set time from start-up to get to 10,000 feet in order to NOT overheat - to the point that in warm Pacific operations the mag-check was done while taxi-ing. Can you say 'high-strung' ? I thought you could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the bf 109 - if you've ever seen one, they are TINY* - pilot would really be hard-pressed to get into the cockpit if larger than about 160 pounds. Least amount of plane to control the most engine of the period - and remember its' first flight was 1935 ! - while the Russian Polikarpov I-15 ( Chato ) had a cantilever wing and retractable gear, it still had an open cockpit and radial engine.

 

Aside from the massive numbers of them built, there are 4 things that really stand out to me about the design -

 

1) the automatic leading-edge slats to make up for the high-wing loading's poor low-speed handling - smart

2) the narrow under carriage - the wheels were mounted to the fuselage and permitted the wings to be removed entirely if needed - neat, but it meant that the plane had a very narrow track - and they were notorious for ground accidents. I wonder how many were lost that way ?

3) Several pilots reviewing them post-war remarked that they were very cheaply made "This thing is built like crap" - likely a function of skilled labor all being gone ? - or just in contrast to the beautifully-built US planes ?

4) Post-war, license-built Bf 109s were made in Czechoslovakia, - - and flown by....( wait for it....) the Israeli air force !

 

 

* max take-off weight of the 109 was about 7,500 lbs, the P-51 was over 12,000 and the P-47 17,500 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3) Several pilots reviewing them post-war remarked that they were very cheaply made "This thing is built like crap" - likely a function of skilled labor all being gone ? - or just in contrast to the beautifully-built US planes ?

Thisse oune maide me laffe outte loude. I no a pearson that assembelled US war planes, "on teh line" and when he sawe a Messherschmitte he wase inpresste withe theire 'workemenshippe" ressessed boltte heades, allen heade bolttes, etc. As farre as he wase conserned Germane qallitey wase farre supperiore.

 

You desside! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the Wasp Major - the ultimate piston aircraft engine in it's ultimate installation was on the B-36. It had 6 of them (with 4 jets) in a pusher configuration.

 

168 cylinders, 336 spark plugs and 672 valves. I find it hard to fathom that such a thing could actually run let alone make 4000 HP.

 

Imagine being ground crew on one of them and hearing the crew chief announce "O/K boys, today it's plugs & points and valve adjustment." :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3) Several pilots reviewing them post-war remarked that they were very cheaply made "This thing is built like crap" - likely a function of skilled labor all being gone ? - or just in contrast to the beautifully-built US planes ?

Thisse oune maide me laffe outte loude. I no a pearson that assembelled US war planes, "on teh line" and when he sawe a Messherschmitte he wase inpresste withe theire 'workemenshippe" ressessed boltte heades, allen heade bolttes, etc. As farre as he wase conserned Germane qallitey wase farre supperiore.

 

You desside! :)

 

Me 109's were supposed to be very easy to work on in the field. There was a method to the simplicity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the Wasp Major - the ultimate piston aircraft engine in it's ultimate installation was on the B-36. It had 6 of them (with 4 jets) in a pusher configuration.

 

168 cylinders, 336 spark plugs and 672 valves. I find it hard to fathom that such a thing could actually run let alone make 4000 HP.

 

Imagine being ground crew on one of them and hearing the crew chief announce "O/K boys, today it's plugs & points and valve adjustment." :blink:

 

And then they put a turbine in the exhaust, ran a few shafts and added a gearbox. Hey Presto, turbo compound. And then the problems really started.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3) Several pilots reviewing them post-war remarked that they were very cheaply made "This thing is built like crap" - likely a function of skilled labor all being gone ? - or just in contrast to the beautifully-built US planes ?

Thisse oune maide me laffe outte loude. I no a pearson that assembelled US war planes, "on teh line" and when he sawe a Messherschmitte he wase inpresste withe theire 'workemenshippe" ressessed boltte heades, allen heade bolttes, etc. As farre as he wase conserned Germane qallitey wase farre supperiore.

 

You desside! :)

 

Me 109's were supposed to be very easy to work on in the field. There was a method to the simplicity...

 

Artte cane be eazey, simplicittey is an artte :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Imagine the gumption to get those four, famously cantankerous engines running after 70 years sitting.

No kidding. They have a cutaway of one of those Wasp Major's at McMinnville. The most insanely complicated machine I think I have ever seen.

 

28 cylinders in 4 rows, 4 valves per cylinder, 2 plugs per cylinder, turbocharged and supercharged.

 

And they had 4 of them to get running without even a shade tree to work under. ;) 112 cylinders, 224 spark plugs, 448 valves. :blink:

 

6847964719_8f8c97457a_b.jpg

Trivia question, no googling. Why are the cylinders helically twisted on the case?

 

Cooling airflow and internal rotating assembly clearance issues I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

3) Several pilots reviewing them post-war remarked that they were very cheaply made "This thing is built like crap" - likely a function of skilled labor all being gone ? - or just in contrast to the beautifully-built US planes ?

Thisse oune maide me laffe outte loude. I no a pearson that assembelled US war planes, "on teh line" and when he sawe a Messherschmitte he wase inpresste withe theire 'workemenshippe" ressessed boltte heades, allen heade bolttes, etc. As farre as he wase conserned Germane qallitey wase farre supperiore.

 

You desside! :)

Me 109's were supposed to be very easy to work on in the field. There was a method to the simplicity...

Artte cane be eazey, simplicittey is an artte :)

 

German efficiency.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

3) Several pilots reviewing them post-war remarked that they were very cheaply made "This thing is built like crap" - likely a function of skilled labor all being gone ? - or just in contrast to the beautifully-built US planes ?

Thisse oune maide me laffe outte loude. I no a pearson that assembelled US war planes, "on teh line" and when he sawe a Messherschmitte he wase inpresste withe theire 'workemenshippe" ressessed boltte heades, allen heade bolttes, etc. As farre as he wase conserned Germane qallitey wase farre supperiore.

 

You desside! :)

 

Me 109's were supposed to be very easy to work on in the field. There was a method to the simplicity...

 

Artte cane be eazey, simplicittey is an artte :)

 

 

And that is something very hard for engineers to keep in mind. It's just so easy to dazzle oneself with one's own brilliance (a Dunning-Kruger effect corollary, I suppose). I was fortunate that my first lead engineer and then supervisor drilled KISS into my head regularly. Once it was my turn to train young mechanical engineers, I modified it a bit to KISS and MISS. KISS it when chunking down the problem into bite size bits and MISS it when implementing the solution. Had one smart-ass kid who improved on it and added it to his project flow charts. He rose quickly.

 

Back in the 80s, I was fortunate enough to be the project engineer gutting and modernizing some engine test cells built in the 1950's for the R4360 Wasp Major shown above into one of the most advanced jet engine test facilities on the planet. The mechanical systems installed 35+ years ago are still in use today. We had a museum quality R2800 and R4360 that were pulled out for air shows. Lost them in a flood.

 

How about some R4360 love? Never mind the idiots not wearing hearing protection or standing near the plane of rotation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those things sound like a bike gang on Harleys at a traffic light. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,,,

Listen to a Merlin engine and hear a beautiful symphonic sound. Listen to the Daimler Benz engine. The recipe for recreating this sound is to start with a Merlin. Put in a racing camshaft, jack up the compression, and then garnish with the shriek of 1000 tortured souls that is the DB605 supercharger. It is simply the most pure and sinister sound in the universe. ,,,

 

newly restored Bf109G test flight

(& video)

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/20-amazing-now-images-wwii-adam-surrey-x.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

,,,

Listen to a Merlin engine and hear a beautiful symphonic sound. Listen to the Daimler Benz engine. The recipe for recreating this sound is to start with a Merlin. Put in a racing camshaft, jack up the compression, and then garnish with the shriek of 1000 tortured souls that is the DB605 supercharger. It is simply the most pure and sinister sound in the universe. ,,,

 

newly restored Bf109G test flight

(& video)

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/20-amazing-now-images-wwii-adam-surrey-x.html

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, German quality really depends upon what part of the war you are talking about. Near the end things got pretty cheap and nasty. What they did have that we didn't was large forge presses to make larger one piece forging. Those big 50k ton presses that we built after the war was because of that.

 

The Germans also never developed reliable high powered engines above 2k hp - yes, very good supercharging, very tight tolerances, high piston speeds, MW50/50 injection...etc...

 

Personally, after looking at all the specialized fasteners and splines, I'd never want to have worked on one of those inverted V-12s on the Ostfront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, my goodness. A real engine run in a real engine test facility. That test cell was pretty advanced for 1992. Running the engine took a lot, and I mean really a lot, of time and money and effort to make that happen.

 

As a former engine test cell weinie, I am so aroused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh, my goodness. A real engine run in a real engine test facility. That test cell was pretty advanced for 1992. Running the engine took a lot, and I mean really a lot, of time and money and effort to make that happen.

 

As a former engine test cell weinie, I am so aroused.

 

 

They even put one in a car.....Schau dort, dass sie eine NASCAR bekommen haben

 

MHV_MB_T80_World_Record_Car_1939.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

 

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Yes, they tried very hard to get 2000hp. But they were beaten by the inability to add more volume or more cylinders to their engines, something the allies could do with the their development of the more numerous airframes by more numerous manufacturers.

 

The spitfire of 45 was barely related to the spitfire of 39. I don't think the changes to a 109 were as drastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Yes, they tried very hard to get 2000hp. But they were beaten by the inability to add more volume or more cylinders to their engines, something the allies could do with the their development of the more numerous airframes by more numerous manufacturers.

 

The spitfire of 45 was barely related to the spitfire of 39. I don't think the changes to a 109 were as drastic.

 

 

No, they weren't. Amazing they stayed with it given some of the serious design compromises.

 

I've read somewhere the air museums have a very hard time re-building these engines because of the construction techniques, unobtanium materials and tight tolerances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Yes, they tried very hard to get 2000hp. But they were beaten by the inability to add more volume or more cylinders to their engines, something the allies could do with the their development of the more numerous airframes by more numerous manufacturers.

 

The spitfire of 45 was barely related to the spitfire of 39. I don't think the changes to a 109 were as drastic.

 

 

No, they weren't. Amazing they stayed with it given some of the serious design compromises.

 

I've read somewhere the air museums have a very hard time re-building these engines because of the construction techniques, unobtanium materials and tight tolerances.

 

 

Many of the top German pilots were asking for a new design as early as 1943 when they started seeing more single engine fighters over and deeper in the continent... they knew it was only a matter time before something like the P-51 would show up.. which did shortly there after.

 

The ME 262 was already in limited production as a "ground attack bomber" and many of the top pilots were asking the Luftwaffe High Command to ramp it up as an interceptor.... but in Goring's bizarreo world there was no need until it was too late.

 

Elegua... got three good reads for you if you're interested:

 

Fighter Aes of the Lauftwaffe

Fighter General

Adolf Galland.. The Authorized Biography this one will put a shiver down you spine with the "What if" proposition... that TV show Man in the High Castle could have been a reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Hitler who demanded the 262 be a bomber.

 

My wife's uncle flew P-51's against them at the end. He said they could take them on because they could turn inside them - cut the corner. If the 262 pilots stood on it they could scoot away of course - 100+ MPH advantage but the P-51's weren't as out of the fight as one might imagine due to the tighter turning radius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Hitler who demanded the 262 be a bomber.

 

My wife's uncle flew P-51's against them at the end. He said they could take them on because they could turn inside them - cut the corner. If the 262 pilots stood on it they could scoot away of course - 100+ MPH advantage but the P-51's weren't as out of the fight as one might imagine due to the tighter turning radius.

 

Yes...that was in 1941, but when the pilots wanted it changed over in 1943 it would have meant the Goring would have to admit his plans were not working.. and we know how that worked

 

Regarding your wife's uncle.. once the Luftwaffe learned how to handle the 262 along with the leading edge slats and develop tacticts it was a different story; the 262 could not only run the 51, but out maneuver as well at high speeds. A few Luftwaffe pilots had a field day with the 51.. Most of 51 v 262 kills were on takeoff and landing... ala Chuck Yeager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, German quality really depends upon what part of the war you are talking about. Near the end things got pretty cheap and nasty. What they did have that we didn't was large forge presses to make larger one piece forging. Those big 50k ton presses that we built after the war was because of that.

 

The Germans also never developed reliable high powered engines above 2k hp - yes, very good supercharging, very tight tolerances, high piston speeds, MW50/50 injection...etc...

 

Personally, after looking at all the specialized fasteners and splines, I'd never want to have worked on one of those inverted V-12s on the Ostfront.

 

 

R.V. Jones's Most Secret War is an interesting read. He was MI6's chief scientific advisor, and had quite the career. One of his jobs was to look at the Wurzburg radar that the paras nicked from Bruneval with Operation Biting. IIRC, he noted that the German kit showed a high degree of precision in manufacture, especially with regard to things like frequency accuracy, compared to British radar that relied much more on training the operators.

 

Quite the man. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-professor-r-v-jones-1289581.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Yes, they tried very hard to get 2000hp. But they were beaten by the inability to add more volume or more cylinders to their engines, something the allies could do with the their development of the more numerous airframes by more numerous manufacturers.

 

The spitfire of 45 was barely related to the spitfire of 39. I don't think the changes to a 109 were as drastic.

No, they weren't. Amazing they stayed with it given some of the serious design compromises.

 

I've read somewhere the air museums have a very hard time re-building these engines because of the construction techniques, unobtanium materials and tight tolerances.

 

They stayed because they had limited choices. Production space was limited, materials were limited. They didn't have the resources to to open up another production line, let alone the time to design and develop.

 

They run what they brung and did a heap of tinkering.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was Hitler who demanded the 262 be a bomber.

 

My wife's uncle flew P-51's against them at the end. He said they could take them on because they could turn inside them - cut the corner. If the 262 pilots stood on it they could scoot away of course - 100+ MPH advantage but the P-51's weren't as out of the fight as one might imagine due to the tighter turning radius.

Yes...that was in 1941, but when the pilots wanted it changed over in 1943 it would have meant the Goring would have to admit his plans were not working.. and we know how that worked

 

Regarding your wife's uncle.. once the Luftwaffe learned how to handle the 262 along with the leading edge slats and develop tacticts it was a different story; the 262 could not only run the 51, but out maneuver as well at high speeds. A few Luftwaffe pilots had a field day with the 51.. Most of 51 v 262 kills were on takeoff and landing... ala Chuck Yeager

 

Me 262 fields had standing caps. Many shot down in the landing pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Yes, they tried very hard to get 2000hp. But they were beaten by the inability to add more volume or more cylinders to their engines, something the allies could do with the their development of the more numerous airframes by more numerous manufacturers.

 

The spitfire of 45 was barely related to the spitfire of 39. I don't think the changes to a 109 were as drastic.

No, they weren't. Amazing they stayed with it given some of the serious design compromises.

 

I've read somewhere the air museums have a very hard time re-building these engines because of the construction techniques, unobtanium materials and tight tolerances.

Many of the top German pilots were asking for a new design as early as 1943 when they started seeing more single engine fighters over and deeper in the continent... they knew it was only a matter time before something like the P-51 would show up.. which did shortly there after.

 

The ME 262 was already in limited production as a "ground attack bomber" and many of the top pilots were asking the Luftwaffe High Command to ramp it up as an interceptor.... but in Goring's bizarreo world there was no need until it was too late.

 

Elegua... got three good reads for you if you're interested:

 

Fighter Aes of the Lauftwaffe

Fighter General

Adolf Galland.. The Authorized Biography this one will put a shiver down you spine with the "What if" proposition... that TV show Man in the High Castle could have been a reality.

 

 

I read gallands autobiography when I was young. It left a lasting impression....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to "turn inside" your opponent is nice, but if the other guy is faster, then your defensive after the first pass. The Japanese Zero could turn inside a Hellcat, Corsair, or P-38 (or almost any other monoplane WWII fighter) but those three all had better kill ratios...because their speed advantage let them decide when to engage, and when to disengage...

 

As was mentioned, most Me-262s were shot down over their own field, typically when coming in to land, low on gas and BBs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Yes, they tried very hard to get 2000hp. But they were beaten by the inability to add more volume or more cylinders to their engines, something the allies could do with the their development of the more numerous airframes by more numerous manufacturers.

 

The spitfire of 45 was barely related to the spitfire of 39. I don't think the changes to a 109 were as drastic.

No, they weren't. Amazing they stayed with it given some of the serious design compromises.

 

I've read somewhere the air museums have a very hard time re-building these engines because of the construction techniques, unobtanium materials and tight tolerances.

 

They stayed because they had limited choices. Production space was limited, materials were limited. They didn't have the resources to to open up another production line, let alone the time to design and develop.

 

They run what they brung and did a heap of tinkering.....

 

 

Vast resources were wasted on thing like developing the A-2. I think we need to keep this in mind when developing our systems. It's the application and the outcome, not the tech that is key.

 

Thanks Nacra...

 

 

Fighter Aes of the Lauftwaffe

Fighter General

Adolf Galland.. The Authorized Biography this one will put a shiver down you spine with the "What if" proposition... that TV show Man in the High Castle could have been a reality.

 

Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain is also an interesting read as is The German War by Nicholas Stargardt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Yes, they tried very hard to get 2000hp. But they were beaten by the inability to add more volume or more cylinders to their engines, something the allies could do with the their development of the more numerous airframes by more numerous manufacturers.

 

The spitfire of 45 was barely related to the spitfire of 39. I don't think the changes to a 109 were as drastic.

No, they weren't. Amazing they stayed with it given some of the serious design compromises.

 

I've read somewhere the air museums have a very hard time re-building these engines because of the construction techniques, unobtanium materials and tight tolerances.

They stayed because they had limited choices. Production space was limited, materials were limited. They didn't have the resources to to open up another production line, let alone the time to design and develop.

 

They run what they brung and did a heap of tinkering.....

Vast resources were wasted on thing like developing the A-2. I think we need to keep this in mind when developing our systems. It's the application and the outcome, not the tech that is key.

 

Thanks Nacra...

 

Fighter Aes of the Lauftwaffe

Fighter General

Adolf Galland.. The Authorized Biography this one will put a shiver down you spine with the "What if" proposition... that TV show Man in the High Castle could have been a reality.

Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain is also an interesting read as is The German War by Nicholas Stargardt

A2? You mean v2 or a4?

 

History shows they may have had limited effect but what if the Germans developed nukes?

 

Either way, Hitler's direct involvement in weapons and his enthusiasm for esoteric solutions limited responses to the here and now, prioritising a knock out blow instead.

 

 

Though after about 42, breaking the stalemate of Europe maybe need someone esoteric.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Germans didn't need 2000hp. Put an me109 against a p47.....The 109 is a midget.

 

2000hp from a v12 is a pretty big ask. Even the English struggled, finally ending up with a monster, the Griffin. Causing massive redesigns of existing airframes or entirely new aircraft.

 

 

But by then, turbines were the future.....

My point is they did try very hard to get 2k hp into the 109 and came close, but couldn't get there. And lack of reliable large engines is one reason they never got a strategic bomber despite lots of trying.

 

Jets still were not quite ready for prime time with short fatigue life and other issues. They started the war with a technical lead in many areas, but were not able to maintain it. Technical brilliance with not so brilliant focus on application.

Yes, they tried very hard to get 2000hp. But they were beaten by the inability to add more volume or more cylinders to their engines, something the allies could do with the their development of the more numerous airframes by more numerous manufacturers.

 

The spitfire of 45 was barely related to the spitfire of 39. I don't think the changes to a 109 were as drastic.

No, they weren't. Amazing they stayed with it given some of the serious design compromises.

 

I've read somewhere the air museums have a very hard time re-building these engines because of the construction techniques, unobtanium materials and tight tolerances.

They stayed because they had limited choices. Production space was limited, materials were limited. They didn't have the resources to to open up another production line, let alone the time to design and develop.

 

They run what they brung and did a heap of tinkering.....

Vast resources were wasted on thing like developing the A-2. I think we need to keep this in mind when developing our systems. It's the application and the outcome, not the tech that is key.

 

Thanks Nacra...

 

Fighter Aes of the Lauftwaffe

Fighter General

Adolf Galland.. The Authorized Biography this one will put a shiver down you spine with the "What if" proposition... that TV show Man in the High Castle could have been a reality.

Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain is also an interesting read as is The German War by Nicholas Stargardt

A2? You mean v2 or a4?

 

History shows they may have had limited effect but what if the Germans developed nukes?

 

Either way, Hitler's direct involvement in weapons and his enthusiasm for esoteric solutions limited responses to the here and now, prioritising a knock out blow instead.

 

 

Though after about 42, breaking the stalemate of Europe maybe need someone esoteric.....

 

 

Ooops, A-4. There's an interesting book about reverse engineering the A-4 written by a Russian called Rockets & People. Must be taken with a grain of salt, or even a whole shaker, but it is an interesting view into how many resources went into the program.

 

The Germans were pretty far barking up the wrong scientific tree with the nukes. Many of the best minds were in the US, thanks to an certain religious based security policy :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having read a lot about the times (& coming from Austria...remember: the country that made beethoven an Austrian & AH a German..) I have come to the conclusion that it was "lucky" that those nazis were that far out of their minds. if they had been just a little less crazy europe today would probably be a much unhappier place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

The Germans were pretty far barking up the wrong scientific tree with the nukes. Many of the best minds were in the US, thanks to an certain religious based security policy :ph34r:

You mean the Nazi's religious-based security policy? Yeah, they fucked themselves on nukes when they decided that it was in fact an Aryan invention rather than the discovery of an Austrian female Jew physicist named Lise Meitner, and her nephew Otto Frisch.

 

Utter dipshits those Nazis were. Within just a few years they managed to turn the most advanced culture on the planet in a smoking shitshow, incapable of even recognizing the gifts they had stolen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having read a lot about the times (& coming from Austria...remember: the country that made beethoven an Austrian & AH a German..) I have come to the conclusion that it was "lucky" that those nazis were that far out of their minds. if they had been just a little less crazy europe today would probably be a much unhappier place

If they'd waited a couple years and didn't jump the gun, and were less crazy.... Terrifying indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I just love how a thread can drift.

 

 

There once was a thing called a V-2

To pilot which you did not need to-

You just pushed a button,

And it would leave nuttin'

But stiffs and big holes and debris, too.

 

 

There was a young fellow named Crockett,

Who had an affair with a rocket.

If you saw them out there

You'd be tempted to stare,

But if you ain't tried it, don't knock it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

having read a lot about the times (& coming from Austria...remember: the country that made beethoven an Austrian & AH a German..) I have come to the conclusion that it was "lucky" that those nazis were that far out of their minds. if they had been just a little less crazy europe today would probably be a much unhappier place

If they'd waited a couple years and didn't jump the gun, and were less crazy.... Terrifying indeed

 

 

If you already haven't; read Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich"..... some scary stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A2? You mean v2 or a4?

 

History shows they may have had limited effect

 

I read some stats years ago on the V2 - it averaged two people killed per missile in the period when it was being launched against England.

 

Not what I would call effective.

 

Iraqi SCUDS were little more than V2's and look how useless they were, even after 1/2 century of improvement in guidance systems..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the effectiveness of a V2 or a SCUD for that matter is more in the psychological than the actual body count. For the V2 at the time it had to be especially terrifying to the English public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A2? You mean v2 or a4?

History shows they may have had limited effect

 

I read some stats years ago on the V2 - it averaged two people killed per missile in the period when it was being launched against England.

 

Not what I would call effective.

The XX (double cross) Twenty committee was quite busy when it came to V2 targeting. Effective, too.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Cross_System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossbow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A book well worth the read is Sigh for a Merlin by Alex Henshaw the chief test pilot for the Spitfire, it charts is development from a light and nimble timber and canvas sport plane to an armored super charged beast. Just incredible the production rate for these things, particularly given the factory was almost too big to miss and each night they would pick up the body parts, fill in the holes and keep going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

6847964719_8f8c97457a_b.jpg

 

That thing evolutionary or did someone just dream it up?

both. They didn't have the computer design tools to test configurations so they had to build it. You start with something that works and you expand and expand upon it. Until it becomes impractical. Look up computers of World War II.

 

Eventually you find something that doesn't work.

 

Why build a large 4 cylinder engine for a car vs a small 6 cylinder? there are reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

6847964719_8f8c97457a_b.jpg

 

That thing evolutionary or did someone just dream it up?

both. They didn't have the computer design tools to test configurations so they had to build it. You start with something that works and you expand and expand upon it. Until it becomes impractical. Look up computers of World War II.

 

Eventually you find something that doesn't work.

 

Why build a large 4 cylinder engine for a car vs a small 6 cylinder? there are reasons.

If one 7 cylinder radial is good, why not put two together? Or 3? How about 4?

 

 

There's no substitute for cubic inches....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If one 7 cylinder radial is good, why not put two together? Or 3? How about 4?

 

 

There's no substitute for cubic inches....

 

 

 

Or 8 for 56

 

011_zpsd88f0986.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

6847964719_8f8c97457a_b.jpg

 

That thing evolutionary or did someone just dream it up?

 

 

Search "Pratt & Whitney Wasp"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If one 7 cylinder radial is good, why not put two together? Or 3? How about 4?

 

 

There's no substitute for cubic inches....

 

 

 

Or 8 for 56

 

011_zpsd88f0986.jpg

 

 

IsmDMDp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell do they not turn the ?crank/?prop shaft into a corkscrew? And how do you get a prop to effectively use that much power? Impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If one 7 cylinder radial is good, why not put two together? Or 3? How about 4?

 

 

There's no substitute for cubic inches....

 

 

 

Or 8 for 56

 

011_zpsd88f0986.jpg

 

 

IsmDMDp.png

 

 

I know... I just had to through it in there... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If one 7 cylinder radial is good, why not put two together? Or 3? How about 4?

 

 

There's no substitute for cubic inches....

 

 

 

Or 8 for 56

 

011_zpsd88f0986.jpg

 

 

I presume that is a shopped image.

 

 

Or did someone actually double the Wasp Major?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

6847964719_8f8c97457a_b.jpg

 

That thing evolutionary or did someone just dream it up?

 

 

As noted it was both. It was 20's technology with a huge amount of war-driven development. I believe it started as a single row of 7 cylinders - which itself was a development of WW I technology.

 

I spent quite a while looking at the McMinnville cutaway - it was so incredibly complicated that it was hard to believe it could actually run. I can't imagine it being designed from scratch in the days of slide rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites