Messerschmitt Me 262.

As usually, honorable ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Digger has the point in this case:

… it was an aircraft yet to reach it’s potential, when the war ended… Engine development was it’s biggest stumbling block, remembering this was cutting edge technology at the time, and it was this developmental problems with the Jumo engines which caused most of the delays.

Indeed, engine development was Me 262’s biggest faltering obstruct, but it has to be emphasized that this gas turbine jet power plant actually was a compromise between engineering desires and available materials and production facilities.

Outstanding evidence of technological compromises resulting from lack of strategic materials is situated in the fact that more than 7% of the engine intake-air was bled-off for cooling purposes. Despite this, however, most engines were found to have a service life of about only 10 hr., against a “design life” of 25 – 35 hr. Additional compromises are evident in the design, which shows that the production engineers were undoubtedly hampered by lack of both plant facilities and adequate skilled labor, but the main reason for a delay in Me 262 production was the diversion of critical materials into U-boat production and other projects late in the war, ant that verity forced Junkers to produce the 004 B engines with only 1/3 of the high grade steel that had been used in the very first 004A engines. It was a disastrous concession for the Me 262.

It has to be also emphasized that these failures were actually anticipated to some extent and the Me 262 was designed to permit really rapid engine changes.

Contrary to popular belief, the Jumo 004 was a fairly sound performer when first-rate steel alloys of excellent heat-resistant qualities were used just after the German capitulation, and it was proved by US post-war tests that simple application of different materials made possible to get average endurance of the turbines up to 150 hours service in actual flight tests, and up to 500 hours on the test stand.

Junkers Jumo 004 B - Cross-Section

The Junkers Jumo 004 B was the first large-scale produced axial-flow aircraft gas turbine engine, developed by Dr. Ing. Anselm Franz from Junkers. Even though Dr. Franz was familiar with centrifugal compressors from his previous work on piston-engine superchargers, he opted for an axial compressor design because he was convinced that the low frontal engine area cross-section was of fundamental importance for a high-speed airplane aerodynamics and that aforesaid low-drag gains could be achieved with an axial design only. This also turned out to be a correct choice as the Gloster Meteor was delayed by problematic airframe integration issues caused by its large, centrifugal compressor equipped Derwent engines.

Rolls-Royce Derwent - Cross Section

The axial compressor concept was based on the steam-turbine experience achieved by AEG in Berlin and it didn’t use a vortex design that was characteristically used by British engineers in their own constructions.

In 1936, when the first work on turbojets began, a high-temperature Krupp-made steel alloy known as P-193 was available. This material, which contained nickel, chromium, and titanium, could be given good high-temperature strength by means of solution treating and precipitation hardening. Dr. Anselm Franz initially used an improved version of P-193 known as Tinidur – austinitic ‘stainless steel’ like steel alloy with 6% titanium, 18% nickel 12% chromium with the balance of steel.

The first turbine blades of the Jumo 004 A version were solid ones. Early tests showed that even supposedly identical blades would have a large scatter life. By 1944, Junkers had solved the problem and obtained uniform quality of the blade by close control of manufacturing, especially of the critical forging process. Attempts to produce hollow blades by folding flat sheets of Tinidur and welding down the trailing edge resulted in failure, as Tinidur could not be welded. Eventually, a deep drawing process was used, in which the stock for the blade was a flat circular blank. Hollow blades could be manufactured faster than solid blades by this process.

However, constant lack of Nickel caused a forced and rapid abandonment of the previously used materials. Chromite ore, from which is derived chromium, an element essential for the manufacture of stainless steel was evaluated as one of the few raw materials that were essential for the German war industry and for which there were no fully adequate sources within German territory, was very scarce.

At the beginning of the war Germany had an estimated stockpile of about 250,000 tons of chromite, which had been accumulated by heavy purchases in Africa, Turkey, and the Balkans in the late 1930s. By 1941 the only European source within the German range available for new deliveries of ore was the Balkans, and the only accessible source outside occupied Europe was Turkey, with another one potentially reachable replacement – a mammoth Nikopol manganese ore district - located in Ukrainian part of the USSR. In mid-1944, however, Germany’s loss of all remaining chromite as well as manganese ore supplies was disastrous: the Soviets recaptured Nikopol and succeeded in denying an important source of manganese to the Germans. Subsequently, total German steel production declined from the 35 million tons in 1943 to 2 millions tons per quarter by the end of 1944, and Germany was forced to abandon the production of high alloy-steels. The output of engineering steels declined by two-thirds, and the special steel available for military ordnance declined from nearly 2.5 million tons to less than 900,000 tons. The manufacture of airplanes, tanks, motor vehicles, tank shells, U-boats, and almost the entire gamut of artillery has suffered, but German engineers were still very devoted and skillful, and they successfully developed some even today very intriguing and highly original, even today applicable Ersatz (substitute) solutions.

Previously mentioned forced abandonment of Tinidur alloy, with 30-percent nickel content, strained Krupp toward development of the alloy called Cromadur, which was actually better than their earlier attempt, as Cromadur proved easy to weld. The process of folding the blade flat and welding it turned out to be superior to deep drawing, so the Cromadur blades proved more reliable than the Tinidur blading despite Cromadur’s lower creep strength!

However, intensive air cooling was essential, and it was used throughout the engine. A later version of the 004B engine had hollow, air-cooled stator vanes, because these parts were the most critical ones. Compressor discharge-air was used to cool the blades. With hollow blades made out of Cromadur-alloy sheet metal, the complete 004B engine contained less than 2.3 kg of chromium. Due to these improvements the first production model of the 004B weighed 45.5 kg less than the 004A! Additional modifications were made to the first compressor stages too. A series of 100-hour tests were completed on several engines, and time between overhaul of 50 hours was achieved.

Junkers Jumo 004 – Compressed Air Cooling

Cooling airflow was derived from between the fourth and fifth compressor stages, and led to the double skin around the combustion-chamber assembly. Most air passed down one exhaust cone strut to circulate inside the cone and through small holes to cool the downstream face of the turbine disk. Air was also taken in through three tunnels in two of the casting ribs and into the space between the two plate diaphragms in front of the turbine disk. Most of this air passed through the hollow turbine nozzle guide vanes, emerging through slits in the trailing edges.

Junkers Jumo 004 – Motor Management Schematics

Forced end of the part I… To be continued.

Part II

The turbine, designed in collaboration with AEG, had a degree of reaction of 20 %, which represented a compromise between AEG, which wanted less, and Junkers, which wanted more (from afterburner considerations). The single-stage turbine had 61 blades fixed to the turbine disk by a formed root and kept in position by rivets. The production version had air-cooled hollow blades. A movable ‘bullet’ was mounted in the tailpipe and controlled by a servomotor to vary the nozzle area.

On the other side of the hill situation was pretty different. In England the early development of age hardening nickel alloys was influenced by works of on the nickel-chromium heat and oxidation resistant alloys which showed the outstanding characteristics of the 80% nickel, and 20 % chromium composition (Tapsel & Bradley, 1925). Thus when in the early 1940s, at the request of Britain’s Air Ministry, different private company scientists worked feverishly to solve the problem of appropriate materials for emerging designs in jet and gas turbine engines, that what became one of the most noted contributions during the war by metallurgists (Pfeil, Allan and Convay from the Henry Wiggin & Co. Ltd.) facilities in Birmingham, was the specific re-invention of an low-ferrite alloy for jet-propelled aircraft engines.

Nimonic 80 Alloy Turbine Blades, De Havilland Goblin II Engine

This new nickel alloy called “Nimonic 80” allowed the jet engine’s turbine parts, particularly the blades, to operate for long periods under tremendous stress, under high heat and corrosive exhaust, without deforming or melting. This new non-ferrite alloy was far superior to all German constructive metal alloys used in the aircraft industry. After the war, Nimonic 80 set the stage for a revolution in jet-propelled aviation.

For much of the past century the key location for this essential metal was the legendary Sudbury Basin, with the South Pacific island of New Caledonia coming a distant second.

And finally an additional historiographic remark: After the WW2 Dr. Anselm Franz immigrated to the United States, where he worked for the U.S. Air Force from 1946 until 1950. In 1951, he joined Avco Lycoming and soon moved to Stratford (Connecticut), where he established the gas-turbine department of the aforementioned company, being responsible for several successful engine-development programs, including the T53 (which powers the U.S. military’s AH-1S Cobra, Grumman OV-1 Mohawk, and Bell UH-1 Huey helicopters) and T55 series of turbo-shaft engines, as well as the T55 high-bypass turbofan (named the ALF502). In the 1960s Dr. Anselm Franz led a team to design the three-spool, 1,500 shaft-horsepower AGT-1500 V gas turbine, the power plant for the U.S. M1 Abrams main battle tank. He retired as vice president of Avco Lycoming in 1968.

Dr. Ing. Anselm Franz, Chief Engeneer of the Junkers Jumo 004 Development Program

But that is a completely different story…

As always honorable ladies and gentlemen - all the best!:wink:

Say all you want about the first jet turbines. The fact is that German engineers were aware of the initial shortcomings and had the situation in hand with the 2nd generation of engines that were being developed.

Nice drawing and comments Librarian, the titanium was also a metal wich was completely unavailable for those times in Germany.

Say all you want about the first jet turbines. The fact is that German engineers were aware of the initial shortcomings and had the situation in hand with the 2nd generation of engines that were being developed.

They were aware but due the war situation they were unable to cure it completely, still some 1400 Me-262s were completed, not all used in combat.

I believe (firmly) that the Me-262 was a powerful combat machines despite his shorcomings.

More devastating than all the material poorness was the 25th May order of A.H who said every Me-262 should be a bomber.

Thanks for detailed engeen material mst. Labrarian.
You’ve wondered us as always by your extremaly wide and deep-specific knowleges at the same time.:wink:
BTW i have to add that inspite of engeens problems the Me-262 was the much better aircraft then the first British Meteor Mk i.
The Me-262 had a much more speed and a much more firepower 4x30 mm gun !!! This was a uber-wearpon which could really finish the allies strategic aviation if it was done in the 1944 and in enough quantity.
P.S. oh my god it seems i become a one more “german wearponry soccer” in here :smiley:
what to do?

P.S. oh my god it seems i become a one more “german wearponry soccer” in here :smiley:
what to do?

What to do?..I guess that you might enjoy the conversation while eating some knackwurst and bier. :cool:

I would enjoy but where you are when you are needed?
BTW is it an Me-262 HG II perspective modification which were never finished?

I am always available my dear russian sargeant. ( i did receive your PM)

Indeed that is an Me-262HG “stüfe 1” ( stage 1)… nice isnt ?

[b]Me 262 B-1a[/b] des KG 54 in Giebelstadt

I’ve never doubt in it comrade general;)

Indeed that is an Me-262HG “stüfe 1” ( stage 1)… nice isnt ?

Very nice.
Could you prove for other our comrades ( mostly from the “misty Albion”) that this aircraft could fly enough good.
Becouse some our members , who are the specialist on aerodinamic field :wink: recently tryed to prove me that the Me 262 HG i/II/III simply was not able to fly.

Cheers.

True, although it should be pointed out that Allied engines at this point in time were happily managing over 1,000 hours in service with what were IIRC higher TITs and with no cooling air.

BS. AA Griffith at the RAE in Farnborough made the same fundamental mistake. For a peacetime programme where they had time to get it right, it may have been true. For a wartime emergency programme where they had to get it right first time with limited resources, it was deeply wrong. The point about the Gloster Meteor is savagely flawed too - despite these supposed “issues”, it started development work later and yet entered squadron service before the Me-262 did.
The absolute genius of Frank Whittle - and I make no apologies about using the word - was not in the invention of the Turbojet engine. The concept had been around for quite some time, and he was merely refining it a bit. His genius was in realising that it could be made with simple parts that were already well understood, fettled a bit, and it would beat any engine then in service or on the drawing board by a huge margin. His use of centrifugal compressors is a large part of this - axial flow compressors even today are huge, heavy, a major pain to design right and suffer from stall/surge problems. Centrifugal compressors don’t, and the only reason that they are nowadays limited to a few applications like helicopter engines is simply due to ducting problems when stacking compressors, rather than issues of frontal area.
It is worth noting that Whittle-type engines powered all the first generation of postwar jet aircraft, despite the supposedly “superior design” of the Jumo-type engines being freely available. Given that the Soviets had full access to the German plans - including those for the second-generation engines - and yet decided to build a copy of the RR Derwent instead is to me further evidence that your thesis that the Jumo-004 wasn’t too bad really does not hold water. It wasn’t until engines like the Armstrong-Siddely Sapphire and RR Avon became available in the 1950s that axial flow engines gained widespread acceptance.

I have grave doubts that this was the reason. I really can’t see how the degree of reaction would substantially affect the reheat stage. All it does is change the design of the final stator. If you’re trying to have a rotor as the final stage, then the degree of reaction is critical for far more important things than reheat flame stability. Incidentally, the Jumo 004C was only ever a paper design which would most likely have had major problems in getting it to work. All of the first generation reheat designs proved to be much more troublesome than anticipated, largely due to flame stability problems. I suspect there will also have been some issues with the particular flow regime they operated in and the need for adjustable nozzles to take full advantage - moveable shock cones just don’t cut it.

I should probably declare a bias here. I read Aero & Mechanical Engineering at exactly the same place - Peterhouse, Cambridge - that Frank Whittle read for the Mechanical Sciences Tripos, the forerunner of the current engineering course. Thus my views on him may not be entirely objective, although I have done my best.

That would be me I suspect :wink:
To be fair I’ve never tried to prove that it would be unflyable, but rather that the German performance figures were wildly implausible and it would most likely have been a complete dog.

Gallands report on the Me-262:

Berlin, 25 May 1943:

[RIGHT] [/RIGHT]
Most esteemed Herr Generalfeldmarschall!

On Saturday, the 22nd of the month, I tested the ME 262 at Augsburg in the presence of Oberst Petersen and other persons from the Technical Office. I would have preferred to report personally to the Generalfeldmarschall and also elaborate on other matters, however I was so occupied after my visit to Sicily that there was simply no time. The Reichmarschall has ordered me to report today.

Concerning the Me 262, I beg to state the following:

1.) The aircraft represents an enormous leap forward, it would give us an unimaginable lead over the enemy if he adheres to the piston engine.

2.) In-flight handling of the airframe is impressive.

3.) The power plants are fully convincing, except during take-off and landing.

4.) The aircraft offers entirely new tactical prospects.

I beg to submit the following proposal: The Fw 190 D is under development, its performance should match the Me 209’s in all respects. The performance of the two types, however, will not be superior to the enemy’s models, particularly at altitude. The only progress seems to be in armament and higher speeds.

Conclusion:

a) Me 209 be discontinued
b) Total fighter production to switch from the Fw 190 with BMW 801
to the Fw 190 with DB 603 and Jumo 213 respectively.
c) The construction and industrial capacities thus released to be
concentrated on the Me 262, with immediate effect.
I shall report immediately on my return.

Heil Hitler! Herr Generalfeldmarschall your most obedient servant.

Sources:

“German jet aces of WW2” Osprey Military publishing

“Warplanes of the Luftwaffe”

http://home.att.net/~jv44/

Quite interesting.
Just another, what if scenario.

Do yoy know the another aerodinamic specialists in here ?:smiley:

To be fair I’ve never tried to prove that it would be unflyable, but rather that the German performance figures were wildly implausible and it would most likely have been a complete dog.

The pictures of models which i’ve showed at you just the prototipes that just explain the tendency of Messersmith to use the sweptback wing ( firstly in world for the jet aviation).

Cheers.

One of the great myths surrounding the Me-262 was Hitler’s demand the Me 262 be produced as a bomber severly delayed or impacted on the Me 262 production programme.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The notorious '-Fuhrer-Befhel was tactly ignored and in April 1944 when Me-262 production was barely at a trickle Hitler discovered at a conference with Goering, Milch and Saur not one Me-262 had been delivered as a bomber. Hitler’s famous rage exploded and he declare,“Not a single one of my orders has been obeyed.”

It was not until July 1944 the first Sturmvogel(bomber version) appeared and there had not been any delay in production due to the relative simplicity of the bomb pylons and release mechanism.

Although development of the Jumo 004 engine had been frozen in June 1944 to facilitate faster production, engine production could not keep pace with airframe production, with 59 Me 262’s delivered in July, 20 in August, 91 in September, 117 in October for a total of 315 aircraft.

In early November 1944 the Fuhrer Befhel was cancelled and the bomber units which had been formed played little role in the combat of early 1945.

Regards digger.

Yeah, I do actually. At one point there were five of us on here (at the height of the whack-an-Ironman phase). Just look back through some of the archived threads to see who they were though. The only ones I can remember were Walther and Crab-to-be.

One of the great myths surrounding the Me-262 was Hitler’s demand the Me 262 be produced as a bomber severly delayed or impacted on the Me 262 production programme.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The notorious '-Fuhrer-Befhel was tactly ignored and in April 1944 when Me-262 production was barely at a trickle Hitler discovered at a conference with Goering, Milch and Saur not one Me-262 had been delivered as a bomber. Hitler’s famous rage exploded and he declare,“Not a single one of my orders has been obeyed.”

It was not until July 1944 the first Sturmvogel (bomber version) appeared and there had not been any delay in production due to the relative simplicity of the bomb pylons and release mechanism.

Yes, but Hitler also orderer an devoted fast bomber variant, the convertion to this aircraft wasnt so simple, it need more fuel and reinforcement in the fuselage. ( the sturmvogel was merely a Fighter bomber)

Later I will put more on that.

The fact is that German engineers were aware of the initial shortcomings and had the situation in hand with the 2nd generation of engines that were being developed.

Absolutely agreed, my dear Mr. Twitch1. BTW: I think that soon we will be able to share our contemplations about one mutually common personal love – about Packard and the WW2 war effort of the previously mentioned True Pride of the American Engineering Herritage. Although I do prefer the 1941 Clipper, I think that we will have an interesting conversation.

Thanks for detailed engeen material…

Oh, not at all, my daer Mr. Chevan. Engineering history always represented an substantial part of my private interests, and I am assuring you that some till now unpresented materials concerning perspectives and results of different Soviet engineering efforts will be posted here as well. And I think that you will be able to see some rare examples of true constructive ingenuity in that case too.

BS

Oh, please my dear Mr. Pdf27: this idiom is absolutely inappropriate for an Officer and a Gentlemen.

True, although it should be pointed out that Allied engines at this point in time were happily managing over 1,000 hours in service …

Would you be so kind to present the resources, my dear Mr. Pdf27? You see, I was able to find the officially distributed information that J33 jet-engine, for example, demonstrated a median life of only 151 hours before general overhaul due to poor stress-rupture properties. Please, just follow this link:

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:knPWdNq9O5MJ:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19620006009_1962006009.pdf+median+life,+J33&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=hu

and with no cooling air

With some curiously astonishing exceptions, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, peculiarly connected with another axial-flow jet engine. This time the British one.

Metropolitan Vickers F-2 – Cross Section

For a wartime emergency programme where they had to get it right first time with limited resources, it was deeply wrong
.

Well, in that case, my dear Mr. Pdf27 I think that we can pronounce the whole genuine early American jet-engine design activity as a completely erroneous waste of time and money, and also to enunciate that aforesaid crime was committed by a group of staggering engineering idiots misfortunately positioned in the high places. Of course, I do have a completely opposite opinion. Personally I think that they were very good and completely capable professionals, obsessed with constructive perfectionism. What do I mean under by that? Well, I think that I shall be able to adequately explain this pretty personal, but theoretically well corroborated personal stance.

As you know, early in February of 1940 U.S. National Committee on Aeronautics established a Special Committee on Jet Propulsion, headed by Dr. William F. Durand, eminent aerodynamicist at Stanford University. Durand’s interest in turbine machinery directed the NACA study almost entirely towards gas turbine engines. Curiously, from the very start the axial compressor solution was chosen as the best way to go, and that was explained by the smaller frontal area and higher potential pressure ratio of this engine type. However, although the axial compressor was lighter and more compact it was very well known that this solution represents quite a problematic answer, because it demanded knowledge of complex axial-flow aerodynamics. The complex movement of air across the blades of several stages presented a real challenge to the designers. The fabrication of the complicated compressors in those times without CAD/CAM technology was a genuine nightmare. Produced vibrations, caused by instable internal air-flow, created the danger that compressor blades might fly off in all directions. Nevertheless, the simpler solution found by Mr. Whittle and Mr. von Ohain - the centrifugal compressor - miraculously got away from the visage of those turbine experts within the Committee. The question is – why?

Personally, I think that part of the answer was already elucidated by a renowned N.A. Cumpsty, Head of the Whittle Laboratory, who has pointed out that the centrifugal compressor was used by Mr. Whittle because of the known difficulty of making an axial compressor. With a centrifugal compressor the use of the knowledge connected with pumps was obtainable, and - unlike the axial compressor (deeply connected with steam turbines!) - substantial pressure rise was producible, no matter how badly the aerodynamic of a design actually was calculated.

By directing the air flow radially outwards the centrifugal compressor, generally, always complicates the layout of the engine and obligatorily creates a larger frontal area; this becomes a more serious problem as the flight speeds approach the speed of sound. The centrifugal flow compressor employs an impeller to accelerate the air and a diffuser to produce the required pressure rise. Flow exit’s a centrifugal compressor radially (at 90° to the flight direction) and it must therefore be redirected back towards the combustion chamber, resulting in a additional drop in thermodynamic efficiency.

An engine design using a centrifugal compressor, at least theoretically, allways will have a larger frontal area than one using a axial compressor. This is partly a consequence of the design of a centrifugal impeller, and partly a result of the need for the diffuser to redirect the flow back towards the combustion chamber. As the axial compressor needs more stages than a centrifugal compressor for the equivalent pressure rise, an engine designed with an axial compressor will be longer and thinner than one designed using a centrifugal compressor. This, plus the ability to increase the overall pressure ratio in an axial compressor by the constant addition of extra stages, has led to the use of axial compressors in most engine designs.

It seems also that Mr. Whittle’s choice of a centrifugal compressor for the WU (Whittle Unit) actually was influenced by his previous association with BTH (British Thompson Houston) of Rugby, who actually built WU, as BTH were in a position to assist with compressor design data.

Mr. Whittle was personally well aware that the axial flow compressor had the potential for a mass flow far in excess of the centrifugal compressor, however as engineers and scientists had not resolved the complex aerodynamic problems connected with the axial flow, he took the decision to use the proven, simple and undemanding centrifugal compressor.

It is of interest to note here that by 1942 centrifugal compressors were reaching the limits of efficiency due to the efforts of an almost unknown, but indeed excellent British engineer, who has specialized in aerodynamics - Dr. Stanley Hooker.

Aerodynamisist Dr. Stanley Hooker, hired by Mr. Ernest Hives of Rolls-Royce, was given the responsibility for the development of centrifugal compressors for aircraft piston-engines, such as the Rolls-Royce Merlin. Those more elderly perhaps will remember the fact that Mr. Stanley Hooker was some time ago brought out of retirement by Rolls-Royce, more precisely back there in 1970, in order to resolve the aerodynamic problems of the RB211 which pushed Rolls-Royce into near bankruptcy.

Dr.David Smith, another brilliant British engineer, a mathematically extraordinarily talented Scot living in Bowden, Cheshire, was subsequently employed by Metropolitan Vickers in Trafford Park, Manchester. Intriguingly, Mr. Smith had also written several mathematical papers on the problems of steam turbine rotor stability. This analytical contribution was crucial for the full-grown development of the axial-flow jet engines.

And so, in the same month when the US Special Committee on Jet Propulsion was formed, engineering representatives have arrived from three highly respected American firms and exclusively those with prior experience not with aircraft engines, but within industrial steam turbine design: Allis-Chalmers, Westinghouse, and the General Electric Steam Turbine Division at Schenectady. Intriguing fact, isn’t it?

The rationale for excluding the engine-producing companies from membership on the committee was not that they were too over-burdened with war-related work, because the steam turbine manufacturers were in the same situation. The selection of steam turbine manufacturers actually confirmed the theoretical choice of the axial-flow compressor with multiple stages, a compressor used in industrial steam turbines, as an completely appropriative solution.

If the engine companies had been included, they would have been more likely favor a design with a centrifugal compressor because of their previous experience with piston-engines superchargers.

Forced brak of the post… To be continued.

The case of Allis-Chalmers is highly intriguing in this specific issue. You see, as stated by Mr. George Lewis, the member of the aforesaid Committee, and NACA’s director of research as well, in his personal letter addressed to Mr. Durand, “their particular interest was the axial-flow compressor, which has been constructed at Langley Field”. Mr. Lewis revealed also that the results of a joint investigation with General Electric would be made available. This was obviously a reference to the eight-stage axial-flow compressor, previously constructed by Mr. Eastman Jacobs and Mr. Eugene Wasielewski, and intended primarily as a supercharger. I know that it sounds completely incredibly, but all three of the companies actually selected axial-flow compressors, although they decided not to attempt as many stages as Mr. Wasilewski and Mr. Jacobs, or German engineers.

At this point, all the signs indicated that an axial compressor would be a significant component of any jet propulsion scheme, a presumption shaped by the influence of Mr.Jacobs and the knowledge of the publications of the British aerodynamicists, Griffith and Constant. Future engineering practice would vindicate this decision, since the axial compressor did eventually prevail over the centrifugal one.

Stunning point is also the fact that the Westinghouse design team actually have decided to use a Brown-Bovery axial compressor as pretext for their construction (BTW: Brown-Bowery is highly renowned producer of steam turbines!) as its model. In any case, the company was completely familiar with the axial configuration through experience with axial compressors in Navy surface vessels.

To make this long story short, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, Westinghouse started the development of a project (X19A) sponsored by the U.S. Navy, actually the first real-made, genuine, distinctively American born and bred jet engine, that was ready in November of 1941. It was designed by a team guided by Mr. R. P. Kroon.

Westinghouse-Yankee R 19

Could you believe this – that aforesaid contraption (BTW: outfitted with some pretty nice characteristics!) was equipped with an axial compressor! Sweet Jesus, Joseph and Mary! :shock:

Six-stage axial compressor of the Westinghouse-Yankee 19 (18000 RPM in 1941!)

This early design lead to the more powerful J30 – series turbojet with 11-stage axial flow compressor and two-stage axial flow turbine. By 1944, Westinghouse was working on three derivatives of its first axial engine, the 19A (19 inch diameter). The 19A’s direct descendant, the 19XB, became the J30, and powered the McDonnell FH-1 Phantom. Another variant, Westinghouse J34-WE-34 powered the famous McDonnell F2H Banshee, while Westinghouse J34-WE-36/36 A was used by Douglas for their F3D Skynight. Finally it has to be mentioned that Westinghouse J34-WE-30 was used by Vought company to, this time for their model F6 Pirate.

Well, US Navy probably was some kind of a…quite technologically extravagant society.

On the other hand, several different series J30s were used in US Air Force experimental aircraft program during the 1948-1953 period too. A J34-WE-22, rated at 1360 kg thrust, powered the tiny McDonnell XF-85 “Goblin.” The McDonnell XF-88A used two J34-WE-15 engines, each rated at 1430 kg thrust, while the XF-88B used two XJ34-WE-19s, each rated at 1475 kg thrust. Power for the Douglas X-3 “Stiletto” was provided by two XJ34-WE-17s of 1528 kg thrust each. The -15, -17, and -19 engines were fitted with an afterburner for additional thrust when needed.

Yes, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – I know that the adoption of the Whittle-type engine was a result of a high-ranking transatlantic visit that was performed by genera Arnold, who visited Great Britain in the spring of 1941. He was so impressed with the almost immediate accessibility of the Whittle gas-turbine engine, that due to his exceptionally augmented vexation - caused by American unpreparedness (“I don’t want ever again to have the United States caught the way we were this time!”) he successfully arranged for General Electric to manufacture this engine in the United States.

And so, on 2. October 1942, the Bell P-59A Airacomet, powered by a General Electric I-A gas turbine engine, became the first American jet-propelled aircraft to fly.

The I-A produced so low thrust, however, that performance was almost disappointing. Despite later installation of a more powerful engine, the P-59A did not reach the production stage. The British successfully developed the Meteor, powered by a Rolls Royce W-2B gas turbine engine and used it in World War2, although its performance was modestly better than that of the P-59A. By 1944, General Electric had developed a much more powerful gas turbine engine, the I-40, which was used to power the Lockheed XP80A fighter, developed by a mastermind of Clarence L. (Kelly) Johnson in just 143 days.

Of course, that is another story too…

Perhaps this is the right place for an additional observation toward generally not so widely recognized achievements of late Mr. David Smith, connected with the development of the first British axial flow jet engine for aircraft propulsion.

Another brake… To be continued soon.