The only Allied jet fighter of WW2 | Gloster Meteor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 мар 2023
- The Gloster Meteor was the RAF’s first jet fighter, bringing Britain into the Jet Age. At the same time, engineers of the German Luftwaffe had been working on developing their own operational jet fighter, and the Messerschmitt Me 262 entered service a few months before the Meteor. However, these early jets were relatively underpowered, and while the technology would launch aircraft development into a new era, their impact in the Second World War was limited - partly because of how guarded the technology was. Instead, the Meteor found great use as a test aircraft and in the export market after 1945, and saw active service once again in the early 1950s in the Korean War - this time in the hands of the Royal Australian Air Force.
In this video, our expert Liam Shaw takes us around the details of the Gloster Meteor and its pioneering history.
Visit IWM Duxford: www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-dux...
View and licence the archive film clips used in this video on IWM Film:
film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
Credits:
Gloster Meteor F.8 Prone Pilot via Alan Wilson on Flickr
616 Squadron Meteor via RuthAS
North American F-86F Sabre via D. Miller on Flickr
My grandfather flew these at the beginning of his career before vampires and Hunters. Every time I see them it make me proud of him
Excellent, treble one squadron north Weald, meteors and then hunters.
My uncle flew them
well yes i also enjoy the place where we can see meteors, vampires and hunters flying around to be proud of the pilots who already flew them back in the good ol times.
Vampires???
Cool
Can’t imagine what it must have been like working at Gloucester back in the day, and going from building biplanes to jets in under a decade.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Actually, the Meteor was introduced into service only three months after the Me-262, despite its first flight being two years later. The 262 was the better aircraft in terms of performance, but the Meteor was far more reliable and durable operationally.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Whittle gave the Germans the things they were missing with jet turbines
Just over a decade between the first flight of the Lancaster and the first flight of the Vulcan.
What a time to be alive!
As a famous British test pilot said…I’m a Yank and don’t remember his name…
War is what makes these technological advances possible. Otherwise, we’re all just kind of lazy about it.
The construction is the same, ribs, stringers, frames etc. just arranged in a different pattern. So, no difference.
Whilst it is true that some German designers were investigating the performance benefits of swept wings during WW2, the wing sweep on the Me262 was actually introduced to change the aircraft's centre of gravity when the BMW003 engines turned out to be heavier than anticipated.
Or maybe it was the switch to the Jumo engines, I don't remember exactly. But you're right - the slightly swept wings was initially done just to get the centre of gravity right, and then it turned out it had other benefits as well.
@@hadtopicausername It was 100% an issue with center of gravity the degree of sweep on the Me262 is nowhere near enough to actually have any significant effect on performance
@@jonsouth1545 Correct. It is the same degree of sweep as the Douglas DC-3, which ended up with sweep for the same reason as the Me-262.
(Funny how the internet is full of claims that everyone copied this or that from the Germans, but we never hear any claims the Germans copied Douglas. 😉)
@@jonsouth1545 it also had to do with the fact that they quickly discovered jet aircraft were not suited to trail dragger landing gear. Besides burning the ground the aircraft was unable to lift the tail for takeoff without prop blast over the tail. In the first few test flights of the me-262 they reported having to dance on the brake to provide enough drag to get the tail up without causing a nose over. With the wing shift for the engine change CG issues it allows redesigning the plane for a tricycle gear at the same time.
@@hadtopicausername The Jumo 004 was a bit of a disaster of an engine, overweight and horrendously unreliable (both the Jumo and BMW jets had pretty poor reliability compared to the centrifugal flow British designs).
It's not like Frank Whittle didn't realise the advantages of an axial flow design either, long before the war began he had designs for such, but a practical and reliable axial flow compressor was beyond the technology of the early '40s, so they went with the more practical (with the materials of the time) centrifugal type as it needed to be reliable in combat and not have to be rebuilt after every 10 hours.
My first encounter with a Meteor was in January 1946 when I was 4½. I was collecting snow out in the road to build a snowman. A Meteor flew low and fast along the road. I never heard it coming and it scared the living daylights out of me.
A supersonic Meteor in 1946! And at low altitude and without Bang !! Damn, of course in those days local ale must have had a high alcohol content.
@@sergiogregorat1830 Doesn't have to be supersonic for you not to hear it coming until it's almost on you. They could easily do Mach 0.85 in a level flight by that point and the sound wouldn't reach you until the jet itself is very nearby. I used to go to airshows at Edwards AFB and they'd have the B-1 fly low at about Mach 0.9 and you wouldn't even hear them until you could see the thing about to fly over you. While it wasn't the shock of a sonic boom, you'd still go from hearing literally nothing to hearing the engines roar.
@@BiscuitDelivery Indeed. I lived in Inverness in the mid-80s, from which I often walked deep into the Highlands for whole days. Up there above Loch Ness RAF fighters would chase each other at seemingly heather-height, out there miles from anything but sheep. As they came on low and fast, I had no idea they were even there until seconds before they gave me a haircut. It was a truly terrifying experience, especially the first time. I had no time to do anything but dance about in a panic, made only more terrifying by the fact that the sheep were utterly ignoring this unsourced, world-filling roar that had suddenly seized the remote, tranquil moor.
After that I at least knew what was happening and was no longer terrified, but it was still a bracing experience, coming as they did without any warning and vanishing just as fast.
So OP is correct. When a fighter jet flies over you at low altitude, you don't hear it until it's right on top of you.
I had an A10 fly directly over head.I could not hear it until it was almost directly overhead.This shocked me because I worked in NAVAL and ARMY aviation for 12 years on fixed and rotor wing.I also worked the flight deck on the BIG E.I have never had an aircraft sneek up on me like the A10 EVER...so what you experienced I do believe.The loudest aircaft HANDS DOWN nothing close was the harrier.
@Sergio GREGORAT Was out in Jervis Bay- Buzzed by a Sea Fury-the sound arrived only shortly before the Aircraft at Sea Level.
The post WW2 RAF had some of the most unique and beautiful jets in the history of flight, it's sure a shame what's become of England's domestic plane industry.
Our aerospace industry is not as good as it could be but it certainly it isn't as bad as many make it out to be.
Alas the UK was bankrupt after WW2, and the immediate postwar government quite rightly focused on social programmes.
@@demonicsquid7217 We sadly gained the welfare state at the expense everything else.
What welfare state there's nothing left for you unless your a banana boat traveller.
@@richardhumphrey2685 Tripe.
The Argentine Air Force operated Meteors up to 1969. A family friend flew Meteors for many years, he loved the plane. I liked your vid. Regards from Argentina.
I am from Uruguay, 84. In 1964 a big Air Show was held in Montevideo to commemorate aviator Santos Dumont's birth date. I was there and saw several Argentine and Brazilian Meteors doing aerobatics and low passes above thousands of spectators that filled the city coast. An awesome spectacle which I vividly remember.
I'm almost 80. As a young boy in the early 50s I lived close to a small RAF airfield. Meteors and Vampires (and a whole lot of other stuff) flew in and out all the time.
As an 8/9 year old boy, I didn't need any Harry Potter, Superman, or Batman. I had REAL magic on my doorstep. Many a dinner went cold when I heard a flight taking off, and I could draw the cockpit layout of a Meteor from memory.
When I was just short of 9 years old, they had a public open day. I ended ended up dangling from my braces, held up in front of an officer by a very gruff NCO.
"Found THIS in a Vampire cockpit SIR! Making drawings he was,SIR! I think he may be a Russian spy, SIR!"
"Are you a Russian spy, my lad?"
No sir! No! Honest to god! I only live over there!
"Cross your heart and hope to die?"
Yes sir! Yes sir!
"All right then, off you go! But you do realise I have to confiscate your drawings under the Official Secrets Act?"
I couldn't get out of there fast enough.
Years later, when they closed the base and made it into a museum, I learned my drawings had been on the wall of the officers' mess for years.
In these days of turbofans, does anyone else still remember that marvellous pure jet whistling sound?
Great story. Real history. Thank you.
My grandfather whom only had the use of one leg due to childhood Polio witnessed the prototype Meteor at de Havilland in Hatfield where he worked. I’m glad even with his disability he contributed to the war effort and until his death he held his head up high.
Used to live near there, loads of aviation history. Thank you for your Grandfather's service on the equally important, Home Front. My own Grandfather was involved in civil engineering during the war building airfields.
@@ColdBlackInfinite Definitely an interesting place. I still remember them filming Saving Private Ryan with the P 51 flying around. His brother, my Great Uncle unfortunately was captured at Singapore and became a POW. He lived thank God.
262 had the better wing,meteor had the better engine
whom?
@@jaws666 The Me 262 wing had to be changed because of the balance, it was not better, the slight sweep had no aerodynamic benefit.
The comment about the jet engine noise making the public stop and look up made me smile, I live I just outside RAF Coningsby the jets go over nobody bothers, spitfires or hurricane go over we look skywards, Lancaster goes over we all stop and look up
My grandfather did his National Service with 153 Squadron. He worked on night fighters' airframes. I showed him this video and it led to a wonderful 30 minutes of memories. Thankyou.
My favourite thing about that Meteor at duxford is that it is parked right next to a Hurricane and just thinking about the progress in technology in such a short span of time. Oh and id just like to add that I was at the museum on saturday and had a lovely conversation with Liam, a really lovely bloke with incredible amounts of knowledge, would be a dream to work with someone like him, he is a credit to the museum.
One remembers as a small child going to an air show where they had a Meteor lined up with the gunnery range.For a small amount of money one could sit in the cockpit put on a flying helmet and shoot off a few rounds.I still have the 20mm casings.Try doing that today.
"Elfnsafety" would have a fit!
Does one, indeed?
@@feliscorax awww how easily one is offended?
Nice to see these lovely old aircraft, one of which I was privileged to fly back in 1978. One correction, the Prone Meteor did not have the pilot crawling forward from the conventional cockpit onto the couch in the nose. This would have required both major changes to the airframe and an autopilot. In fact that aircraft, WK935, only ever flew with both cockpits occupied. Also, the concept was not abandoned because of the advent of pressurisation. It's aim was to study the human factors of prone control as a way to increase g resistance while also reducing frontal area to reduce drag and improve performance. In the event, any improvement in g resistance was outweighed by much reduced visibility. Engine improvements and the advent of g suits soon made the concept superfluous.
The wing sweep does not of itself give better agility. For the Mig-15, that would be down to better wing loading and lower moment of inertial in roll than the Meteor. The advantage of wing sweep is in drag reduction at the top end of the speed range.
Last, WK991 was never a 'target aircraft', otherwise it would not have survived intact. It was actually a target tow aircraft, used to drag a long wire with a day-glo 'banner' on the end of it for other pilots to shoot at. WK991 would have been painted with bright stripes precisely so it didn't become a target!
I was struggling to understand from this video what advantages the Meteor had over its contemporary prop driven aircraft. Surely it had some or why put so much effort into making it during wartime. Can you fill in the gaps?
Damn good information sir.
@@HAL-vu8ef As regards the initial production aircraft the advantage was marginal. Level flight top speed was similar to a Spitfire XIV, superior to the Tempest, rate of climb was better than both with a higher Service Ceiling and better performance at altitude, although fuel consumption was poor. But the major advantage for the Meteor was in a dive, where it could easily exceed 600 mph. Prop fighters tended to be limited by the blade tips going supersonic. But the F1 and F3 were limited only by the performance of the early engines and nacelles and it was clear that once the potential power was available there would be substantial advantages to jet propulsion. As the video says, only one year after the war the F4 was capable of 600mph in level flight! There were new handling techniques to learn, particularly related to spool-up time and throttle handling, but on the other hand there was no torque reaction from a propeller to deal with. It must have been a fascinating time!
@@HAL-vu8ef it was faster
@@HAL-vu8ef Development goes on all the time, but faster during war. When the first trials were being conducted, no one knew when the war would end and I dare say that folk often were optimistic about getting things in service more quickly than happened.
Playing 'what if' can sometimes answer questions, 'what if' Germany had been able to carry on another 6 months, and had more fuel reserves? If they had managed to get more 262s operational and if we were still flying Spitfire MkIIs and the Americans were still flying P40s and B17Es, things would have been 'interesting'. There is always a push to get better equipment up and working and the general promise of jet aircraft was that they would be potential war winners.
The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was the first jet fighter used operationally by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) during World War II. Two pre-production models did see very limited service in Italy just before the end of World War II.
I scrolled down til I found your response. I figured I couldn't be thre only one
aware of the p80 use in Italy . I believe it was used to try to intercept Arado 234 reconnaissance jets.
@@joeharris3878 It never intercepted any and after a fatal crash they were grounded.
I cant help thinking if Mr Whittle had got more backing from the Government in the early/mid 30s we could have the Meteor flying in the Battle of Britain, I know its all hindsight, and just a thought . Great presentation Liam .
Ironically for a plane with no ejection seat, Martin Baker then for many many decades used a Gloster Meteor as the test platform for.. their ejection seats :)
In fact amazingly enough, I believe as of 2023 they STILL use a Meteor to test them.
Time 7:25. The idea that the pilot would take off from the aft cockpit and crawl up to the front cockpit is absolutely ludicrous. Even if there were not structure and mechanisms in the way don't you think that might be a safety vulnerability? This was a one-off aircraft intended to test the prone piloting concept, not to test whether the pilot moving forward in flight was practical. The aft cockpit was for a safety pilot while the front cockpit was the test cockpit. The aircraft was never flown solo from the front cockpit.
Have a look on the "BerlinB9"
My Dad was a RN test pilot and I have his log book, he flew the prone Meteor and told me it was fun to pull high 'G' and black out the safety pilot in the rear cockpit. The aircraft was never flown solo from the front cockpit and there was definately no crawling between the cockpits in flight.
Thanks for your time on this. Great work.
With the prone pilot Meteor, there were two pilots on board. The pilot in the 'normal' position remained there, it was impossible to change position.
Either way, it has the hallmarks of a daft set-up.
The Germans and Americans tried the same configuration before settling on a recumbent position instead in current generation fighters.
The F-16 has the seat laying back for higher G tolerances.
Prone positions were found incompatible with ejection seats.
Meteors were still being flown as pilotless target drones and target towing aircraft into the 1990s I think!
@@dorsetdumpling5387RAF pilots refused to fly the Meatbox anymore... 450 British pilots killed just in RAF service.
Not mentioned was that the Australian Meteors did score at least one kill against a MIG 15 in Korea, which would have been the Meteor's first success as a fighter.
Halestorm 👍
Meteors were shooting down incoming V1s
@@joelbilly1355 Which was the first aerial kills but the Korea War saw the first fighter on fighter victory. And there is a distinction between shooting down unmanned drones and manned aircraft.
@@christoffermonikander2200 F9F Panther has the distinction of the first jet on jet kill in Nov 1950 before Australians switched from the mustang to meteor
About 6 Mig 15's were shot down but the Meteor had success well before then.
There is a book on Australian aces. One of them was a meteor pilot. He claims to have flown to a 262b base and landed to have a chat to the Germans. This was after they had stood down, but not surrenderd yet.
0:32 Strangely, we can see an combat aircraft (the rocket powered Me 163) when the host says: "... it was determined, that these early jet engines were not powerful enough by themselves to power a combat aircraft."
Yes, I spotted that and commented.
My first memories as a baby was watching Meteors and other jets flying over my pram in my garden at my home at Little Rissington by the airfield. I found them very comforting and loved them flying overhead and did not understand where they had gone when we moved house when I was three.
We used to have one on display outside my local RAF base in Woodvale. Beautiful aircraft. It has been removed pending restoration so I am told. They flew from RAF Woodvale to protect Liverpool during WW2. It was great to live within half a mile of the base, as I got to see all the Aircraft Displays for free. My personal favourite was the Vulcan bomber, so elegant and beautiful, yet threatening at the same time, not least when it was taking off and flying overhead. It seemed to blot out the sky to my child's eye.
Used to fly Chipmunks from Woodvale, great days!
@@rogerkay8603 Lucky you! I tried to join the Air Squadron at Liverpool University, but I was refused as my parents were Spanish and hasn't changed nationality. My friend was accepted, and he learnt to fly on Chipmunks much to my frustration.
The thing that gets me is, nobody talks about the IFF Mark III, Mark X or how advanced the radio's n radars were in these planes as the advances during the war was truely remarkable
I would recommend "The Wizard War" by RV Jones to see the perspective of a man who infodumped on all he knew about not long after all the UK stuff was declassified in the seventies.
And yeah, you are right about the UK being way ahead of Germany in communications and radar. Jones says this because amateur radio became restricted after1933 in Germany and radio kids like himself never rose up to fight the war for Germany as they did in the UK.
I had no idea they actually served during WW2 until this video!
great video, loads of info, many thanks for making it
We’ve just had a Meteor delivered to the National Trust at Croome Court in Worcestershire which with the adjacent Defford Airdrome was a RAF training facility during WW11. The static display at Croome was an actual aeroplane that operated out of Defford .
How can this have been during WW11? I have no recollection of a World War 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11.
I was there about two weeks ago, for many years that meteor was in Norfolk.
The Meteor was the first jet in the Israeli air force. Scored the first jet on jet kill in the area, and served on as a trainer until 1970.
It was also used by the Jordanians, against Israeli Mirage's, but by then it was outclassed.
I think that was in 1954-5 (?) ironically against an EAF de Havilland Vampire.
Und die ersten Flugzeuge der Israelis waren me109 😂
@@panzerpoodle Die waren S-199s. Wie die Bf/Me109s sehr ähnlich, aber keine 109s. Kurz danach haben die auch Supermarine Spitfires bekommen.
@@ghillieglas7379 war eine 109g mit Junkers Motor die in der tschechesslowakei gebaut wurde glaube ich
In the late 40s and early 50s Meteors and Vampires used to fly over where I lived at very low altitude.(I remember one Vampire pilot waving as he flew over), You could always hear the Meteors coming because 0f the distinctive turbine noise which they made. The Vampires were absolutely silent until they were overhead...made us jump as they passed at 2-300 ft..Happy memories!!
In the late 50's, the Meteor was used as a target towing aircraft for the Hunter Training courses at RAF Chivenor. It was a very sedate aircraft with few problems. The Derwent 8 engines were of the centrifugal compressor type.This simple design meant few problems and easy servicing. To check the oil levels of the Derwent, you had to crawl down the intake, reach around, unscrew the oil cap and dip your fingers in! A good aircraft that did it's job superbly.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 wehrboo copium
@@sandervanderkammen9230 1500 destroyed in accidents? Nonsense. 890 were lost in RAF service to all causes and about 400 saw service outside the RAF. Even if all the latter had crashed in accidents, it would not add up to 1500.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 I have books full of WW2 statistics on British aircraft I am interested in that include losses due to non-combat causes. Maybe they are not 100% complete, but they do seem to have been recorded for many aircraft. Do you have evidence to show that Meteor crashes prior to 1947 are particularly underrepresented?
I miscounted - about 800 new builds exported.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 I'm still waiting for actual evidence of over 1500 accidents
I'm surprised the video didn't show the colour footage of 616 squadron meteors filmed in 1944 whilst still based in England.
Worth a Look: The Gloucester Experience.
"The Quick and the Dead". Waterton.
Agreed - a little known classic that anyone interested in aviation would enjoy reading. In fact the bloke getting into the cockpit at 7:06 looks a bit like Bill Waterton himself.
The Gloucester Meteor was the first jet aircraft I remember seeing as a child. The memory stayed with me over the years.
Thank you for this input.
Me 262 wings were not slightly swept back to improve performance. They were designed to be straight, but were swept slightly to adjust the relationship between the center of gravity and the center of pressure when the engines turned out to weigh different than planned.
Too much is made of engine spool up time. Spool from idle was extremely slow, but if patrolling at higher RPM the spool time to full power is nowhere near as significant.
True. The engines were longer that Messersmith anticipated so they had to sweep the wings back to move the centre of gravity to its correct position.
Ssssshhh! Stop it with the facts😊
Its very funny to see this jealous story is still alive (:-))
@ Gort Spool up was really only a factor in the circuit. The phrase “…behind the power curve…” was used to describe the cause of short approaches among other things.
@@truthboomertruthbomber5125 I completely agree that spool up time is only a factor during approach and landing when both airspeed and rpm are low. This is significant factor with very low drag airplanes that don't require much power on final. Steps can be taken to increase drag or decrease thrust for a given RPM by use of speed brakes, thrust attenuators, or even drag chutes, but without such devices the pilot must be careful to anticipate airspeed changes and maintain sufficient RPM when low and slow.
However, the term "behind the power curve" is not really related to engine spool time. The power curve is really the thrust required curve, meaning the thrust required to compensate for the induced drag of the angle of attack used. This means you are flying in the region of reverse command, where the slower you fly the more drag is produced and the more thrust must be added to maintain that speed and prevent further deceleration. This is significant for high performance aircraft with swept low aspect ratio wings because their approach speeds are often within this region. In early high performance jets RPM on final could be near cruise power, so ironically spool time was not as slow as it would be for lower performance aircraft.
I tend to doubt that the approach speed of the straight-wing Meteor was that deep into the backside of the power curve, but I'm sure its centrifugal compressor engines suffered from long spool time at low RPM. This was certainly something to which pilots used to piston engines would have to quickly adapt.
It's interesting that Gloster made the last British biplane fighter and the first jet. I wonder if this was by intent, with the government possibly realizing that (with Supermarine and Hawker) the prop driven area was in good hands.
Its the Gloucester Aircraft Company - made the Meteor and the Javelin delta wing fighter
Hawker were a little busy with the Hurricane at the time and had to shelve the development of the Tornado in 1939 (that later flew with new engines as the Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury).
The Spitfire morphed into the Jet Attacker via the Spiteful.
@@mikerussell3298 Mike, they were apparently the same. From Wikipedia: "Gloster designed and built several fighters that equipped the British Royal Air Force (RAF) during the interwar years including the Gladiator, the RAF's last biplane fighter. The company built most of the wartime production of Hawker Hurricanes and Hawker Typhoons for their parent company Hawker Siddeley while its design office was working on the first British jet aircraft, the E.28/39 experimental aircraft. This was followed by the Meteor, the RAF's first jet-powered fighter and the only Allied jet fighter to be put into service during the Second World War." However, Wiki answered my question. Being owned by Hawker, the parent company decided what they worked on. I believe "Gloucester" is pronounced "Gloster" in England. Apparently they just shortened the company name for convenience purposes. It would be pronounced the same.
@@allangibson8494 Another gem of a posting here - iI had to actually show a series of drawings to a 'know-it-all' who refused to believe the Spitfire morphed into the Attacker through the Spiteful!I n fact the Swift was essentially the Attacker with a swept wing and nosewheel undercarriage and more powerful engine.
@@billwang4181 They shortened the name for the foreign clients who had trouble spelling it on telegrams.
Basically a shrug and if they are doing it anyway well…
After ww2 the danish airforce also flew gloster meteor for a long time , later on F-100 super sabre and F-86 Thunderstrike , all these planes used the volatile fuel almost like floting dynamite and you had to use non magnetic tools so there will be no sparke , must have been very exciting working around these jet planes
I cant remember where I read this. But the only jet on jet action of ww2 was when Meteors gave chase to a Arado Blitz doing recon, although no action happened as meteors didn't catch up to the German plane
Forgot to mention that while slower than the Me262 the Meteor could fly 3000ft higher at 40,000ft while the Me262 could only fly at 37,000ft.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 As typical for brit-fanboys, they mix stuff to paint "their" toy as better.
Nope, the Meteor was a flying brick and shit. Even the Me262, a badly designed fighter was superior, the late war german designs were vastly superior to it.
@@steffenjonda8283 262s really don't get much credit for how good they were. One of the most important things about them that is never talked about is that they were relatively cheap to produce with the Jumos being far simpler and easier to manufacture than late war piston engines. 262s had a very good kill ratio, easy to fly, easy to maintain.
@@johnnycab8986 They were very cheap to produce, if you ignore the many 10thousend killed forced workers.
But i agree... these designs were miracles, compared to "modern" systems...they worked and, with NS-germany in better shape had ended the heavy bomber attacks quickly. Because one thing often overlooked. You cannot protect these heavy "targets"... not the B17, not the B24 and not the B29...
@@johnnycab8986 cheap and crap.
The meteor was a beautiful plane to look at, whether on the ground or in flight.
@@WilhelmKarsten Much less of a killer when compared to the USA Lockheed P 80' over 1000 lost to accidents out of 1700 made !! and the T 33 developed from the P 80 even worse
@@garrington120 What is your source?
@@WilhelmKarsten Do your own research Sander Van KNOW NOTHING ,HATE EVERYTHING BRITISH ; Wilhelm Karsten .
@@WilhelmKarsten
UPDATE BREAKING NEWS*
P80 accident losses - common knowledge obviously.
Contrary to their previous posts.
*The RR (Of England of course) Nene Centrifugal Compressor gas turbine engine was the most powerful gas turbine aero engine on the planet in 1944.*
Whittle style Centrifugal compressor internal combustion reverse flow combuster gas turbine aero engines were never obsolete & are still produced today for Turboprops & helicopters. The Mig 15 & Mig 17 both used RR Nene copies.
*_The Gloster Meteor became the fastest aircraft on the planet in 1945._*
_The world's first aircraft to exceed 1000 mph was indeed a British aircraft._
*_Contrary to their copious & ubiquitous posts regarding accident losses of various UK aircraft._*
*As they know, the Sea Vixen & Gloster Meteor were indeed very competent & beautiful aircraft.*
_In fact the Meteor was the world's first aircraft to exceed 0.85 on the combined 2 year looks & capability scale for jet fighter aircraft._
British military aircraft at the time did not have unusually high accident losses rates.
*For example*
De Havilland Vampire & Sea Vixen & Gloster Meteor accident losses were not high or unusual for fighter aircraft at the time.
Non combat phase accident losses
% of Aircraft built.
*Lockheed XF104 (ff 1954) 100%*
*Lockheed P80 (ff 1944) 43%*
*Lockheed F104 (ff 1954) 45%*
*McDonnell FH Phantom (ff 1945) 35%*
*_Gloster Meteor (ff 1943) 17%_*
*_DH Vampire (ff 1943) 23%_*
*_DH Sea Vixen (ff 1951) 33%_*
Cheers
👍 & 😎 & of course 🙂 indeed.
_Toodle_ *PIP* -Old- *_Chap_*
.. . .. . ... .... . .... . . ... . .......
xcvvvvvvvviixcvvvvviiiiiiiii
Excellent presentation of an aircraft I am very fond of. Thanks so much!
0:33 - narrator talking about early jet engines, shows clip of a German rocket plane.
They really should treat their audience with more respect and realise that we're not the usual TV audience that doesn't notice things like a B-25 taking off on the Mitchell raid turns into a B-29 by the time it gets to Japan.
@@Poliss95 One might think the Imperial War museum would exhibit higher standards. This video is a mess.
Another excellent video, well-researched and very well presented. Congratulations.
It should be noted that the Me 262 was originally designed to have straight wings. A switch in engines, BMW to Jumo required a shift in the center of gravity and to achieve this, the wings were swept. But the sweep was insufficient to have a meaningful impact on transonic drag.
NO no webrits will never give the germans credit for the swept wings!!
@@michaelpielorz9283 - You lost Egypt to independence but you're still in De Nile! 🤣
It should be noted hat penicillin was accidentally discovered when Alexander Fleming was experimenting with a bacterial culture. Which made it of course a totally useless discovery which should never been applied on anybody up to the present date! 🤣
@@michaelpielorz9283 - lots of biplanes had swept wings 😉
That is a completely false myth based on a single dubious source and contradicts all the historical evidence.
The Messerschmitt Me-262 was designed from inception to have swept wings and Adolf Busemann conducted exhaustive tests at the RLMs _Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt_ supersonic wind tunnel laboratories in Brauschweig.
The Messerschmitt Me-262 had ALL SWEPT leading edge surfaces and the highest critical Mach number performance of any WW2 aircraft.
The Me-262 was equipped with a analog fly-by-wire Horizontal Stabilator system to counteract the effects of compressiblity in the transonic region.
The Messerschmitt Me-262 was manufactured or flown with 11 different engine types in 1, 2 and 3 engine configurations with NO CHANGE in wing sweep angle.
Thank you for excellent information and presentation.
I worked on Meteors in Singapore in the late-60s where they were used for towing targets for the RAF and the Navy.
The Meteor is a great aircraft. Some of you might be interested to know that, during the Korean conflict, a total of five RAAF Meteor pilots claimed to have shot down MiG-15s. The claim by Pilot Officer W.H."Bill" Williams was the only one absolutely confirmed; on 8th May 1952 over Sunan. So, the Meteors did do some damage, as a number of the pilots were experienced veterans from WW2. They were also often up against veteran pilots from the USSR flying the MiGs. An Australian was also the first to be saved by a Martin Baker seat in combat, when Warrant Officer Ron Guthrie ejected at 36,600 feet on 29th August 1951. This was the first encounter between MiG-15s and the RAAF Meteor F8s and helped to illustrate that the Meteors were no match for the MiGs, certainly at high altitude, even in the hands of experienced fighter pilots. During the war No. 77 Squadron RAAF flew a total of 18,872 sorties, mostly in Meteors, but sustained heavy losses with 37 pilots killed and seven taken prisoner.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 The Meteor was a far better aircraft that something like the Natter or Komet
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Not very well, considering that its one and only test flight resulted in the death of its test pilot
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Where are you from? You glossed over the fact that I brought up, that being it's *one of the first production jet fighters to see service* and was BOUND to have these issues in the first place.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 I said one of the first...
The Whittle/ Halford and Rolls engines were more advanced than the German JuMos as had higher quality metalurgy and had a longer life, the JuMos needed to be changed every few flights.
The Meteor held the World Airspeed record in 1945 at 606mph and 1946 at 616mph.
They certainly had better metallurgy and far longer life, but this was due to the Germans having metal shortages. The prototype German engines had nickel and cobalt but this was not available to production engines. In other respects the German engines were more advanced - axial flow, air cooled turbine blades, variable geometry exhaust. Whittle knew axial flow was the future but chose centrifugal compressors as they were so well understood.
@@davidellis2021 Really? Then why did the US and the Soviets copy British designs rather than German with better metals after the war?
@@uingaeoc3905 But that's exactly what happened. Pretty soon after the war everyone switched to axial flow engines. Today centrifugal compressors are only used on small engines, and even then only as the final stage of the compressor. Look at operation paperclip (the Russians had a similar programme). Lots of tech was lifted from the Germans after the war. It partly explains the space programmes of both the US and Russia. Look at the TU-95 - it had engines designed by a German, still flying today.
In any case I wasn't saying the German engineers were ahead of the British, just that they made a judgement call about what technology to use on an engine with the resources they had. The British were very advanced with centrifugal compressors, so used them on early engines to mitigate risk. The Germans couldn't get rare metals in production quantities so went with air cooling of mild steel turbine blades. But if you look at both engines the German engines have far more in common with modern engines.
@@uingaeoc3905 After the war everybody, including Britain, began moving toward axial compressors for high performance jet aircraft. Centrifugal compressors are simple and reliable but cannot achieve the pressure ratios of axial flow compressors.
All jet engines use axial flow turbines in the hot section, where expensive alloys makes a huge difference in longevity. Such alloys were in short supply in Germany, so much so that even the exhaust valves of their piston engines suffered limitations.
Jumo 004 was so advanced it took the brits 5 years to copy it. The germans knew radial jets were outdated in 1941,the future belongs to the axials.Yes the Metrovick was there but it`s cooling problems could never be solved, so it was dropped.
The HE 162 flown in britain in 1945 following the RAF data was faster than the Meatbox. Now say booh to the germans!! (:-)) you may have a look at Greg`s automotive and airplanes. He has a video about Jumo 004, but i think you will not like it!
Excellent job; great video and strong narration. Shame about the closed captioning editing with 'mach' instead of 'mark' and the misspelling with 'defense' among the errors I spotted.
Good stuff. Great channel. 💛👍
3:45 Also, the tricycle configuration is much more stable on the ground. Tail draggers want swap ends. If you have gone a bit faster than normal in your car while driving in reverse, you'll know this feeling.
Tail draggers need quite a bit of attetion on the take-off and landing runs.
Tail dragger jets also torch grass runways - the Me262 had that problem until it was retrofitted with the undercarriage of the Me309.
Tail dragers also had a tendency to nose over if you got on the brakes too fast.
It is completely unfair to compare the Meteor F1's performance with the production version Me 262 the F1 was not the production model of the meteor and was the equivalent of the pre-production Me262 A0 of which 23 were built and the A0 was almost 100mph slower than the production model the A-1a. While the F1 was pushed into limited service it was an emergency program only 20 were built and while they were used it was very limited they were in service for less than a month. The production version of the Meteors during WW2 was the F3, not the F1 and while the F3 was 30mph shower in level flight to its contemporary Me262 it was significantly faster in the vertical as well as diving, and the F4 that first flew in May 1945 and used the Dewant Engines was actually 25mph faster in level flight than the late production 262s whilst further widening the gap between the two in the vertical. Comparing the Me262 A-1a to the F1 is the same as comparing an MkV Spitfire to a BF 109A it is simply the wrong comparison
Fascinating - thank you
Very well done documentary
This had a few errors - the late 1944 Derwent Meteor was always significantly faster than the Me262. The Welland Meteor of early 1944 was a bit slower.
The Me262 sweep was as a result of a mistake - the centre of gravity was too far aft (after the removal of the piston engine in the nose) so the wing was swept to fix the centre of lift. The Me210 had similar issues and the Me410 got the same fix. The advantages on critical mach number were discovered later.
The American P-80 Shooting Star was operational in Europe in 1945 (well two of them were…).
@@sandervanderkammen9230 No - the Bell X-1 didn’t use a copy of the Me262’s rear stabiliser - because it is unsuitable for transonic flight because it is too flexible. The X-1 was fitted with an “all moving” elevator assembly copied off the Miles M.42.
Conventional trailing edge elevators are subject to control reversal at supersonic speeds leading to what is politely known as “structural divergence”. The Me262 has a limiting Mach number of 0.86 beyond which it is uncontrollable - and this was confirmed by flight testing. This limited it’s top speed to 540mph / 870kph with a cruising speed of 465mph - in line with the Meteor.
The Derwent Meteors went operational in September 1944.
The Meteor speed tests in 1945 were performed at 250ft altitude to conform to FAI standards for a record flight at the time.
The lousy engine reliability of the German engines meant that they were abandoned as a development path after WW2 by everyone who tried them out.
All the post war global jet engines were derived from the far more reliable British engines like the Derwent, Nene and Sapphire which were copied by both the Americans and Russians.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 The Me262 never HAD a horizontal stabilator system fitted.
Theodore Von Karman never worked for Messerschmitt or visited Germany immediately post war either - he was a US resident from 1936 onwards.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Heinz Herlitzius’s flight didn’t comply with the FAI level flight or ground measurement requirements.
Pitot airspeed measurements basically stop working above Mach 0.9 and need special corrections above that.
Basically a claim with no documentation.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 And the Me262A and Me262HGIII are about as similar as the Gloster Meteor and F-80 Shooting Star.
Aerodynamic models aren’t actual aircraft.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Centrifugal compressor engines simply get too heavy when they put out more than 2000kg of thrust.
Beyond that point the blades on an axial flow compressor can be made robust enough to be reliable.
Rolls Royce switched to the lighter axial compressor with the Avon that followed the Nene (the Avon 101 had parts compatible with the back end of the Nene).
The only transonic aircraft the WW2 Germans built was the Me163.
That’s why the Armstrong Whitworth Sapphire became the template for new high powered engines.
The Metropolitan Vickers F.2 Beryl ran in November 1941 and flew on a Gloster Meteor in November 1943.
The Westinghouse J30 ran in January 1944 - before the first operational flight of the Me262 and thus had zero input from German research.
All the early axial flow engines had reliability issues however.
The Pratt & Whitney PT-6 is a hybrid axial centrifugal compressor gas turbine engine.
First flight of Me-262 : 18 July 1942 with jet engines
First flight of Gloster Meteor: March 5, 1943
0:45 it says a few months later so it is something between 2 to 4 to be few, but in fact it was ~7.5 months, it should not take too much courage to say 7.5 months instead of few...
Meteor first to squadron service, though, by about a week. However, the Meteor I was about 100mph slower than the 262.
@@wbertie2604 It's great but it has nothing to do with my point...
@@stefanbanev I just thought it was interesting.
@@wbertie2604 No, nearly 150 mph... the 44-Meteor was not good and only slightly above the late war P47 or P51 versions... but lacked their range.
The Meteor was - to speak hard - shit, but it was the first quite reliable jet fighter...
But not because its potential opponent couldn´t have been way better, the enemy lacked the strategic ressources. German engines worked for 200h, just the mass produced engines fall to 10, later improved to 50h (very late war production "fixed" that problem)
@@wbertie2604 Only the Mk 1 of which only 20 were produced . The Mk 3 of September 1944 onwards had a top speed of 525mph at altitude and would have been more than a match for the 262 with its far more reliable engines .
Thanks for this 👍✈️
The 'E28/39' was a Gloster design, and variously called the 'Pioneer' and 'The Squirt' (unofficially).
E28/39 was a contract or requirement: experimental number 28 of 1939.
Not intended as a fighter, there was a later design often called the Gloster 'Ace' (unofficial) which was this aircraft developed with more aerodynamic wings, improved engine and some guns, but it never went into production.
The parallel DeHavilland Spidercrab later the Vampire, took longer, but was smaller, cheaper, used one engine and in later versions was more agile than both Meteor and Me262. It first flew in 1943, and was not operational until after WWII.
Best jet of WWII? Hard to tell, never heard about the performance of the first Lockheed P80s.
Pre WW2 Britain was on two paths:
*1)* The *axial-flow* air compressor by Griffiths;
*2)* The *centrifugal* air compressor by Whittle.
Griffiths' 1926 seminal paper laid down axial-flow. His paper actually outlined a turbo prop. He did not believe at the time the engines could produce enough thrust, but could turn a propeller. He got Metrovick to develop an axial-flow turbojet in 1938, who started the groundwork of the F.2 axial-flow in 1940, having an engine first spin in 1940, with a successful test bed spin in 1941. Whittle's patent was in 1930, which laid down the _turbojet._ All this info was available to the Germans.
Whittle went for centrifugal, as it was a _simpler_ way of compressing air. Whittle wanted a simple air compressor to establish his turbo jet design *_quickly._* In short, he was interested more in establishing the back end of the engine, the thrust, rather than the front. Once the back end was perfected then he could improve the front, the air compression. This was the sensible approach. The centrifugal compressor was perfectly adequate to prove the rear thrust side of the engine.
As post war engines proved, the centrifugal was taken to higher limits. Axial-flow compression was a series of turbine fans on one shaft, with successive fans passing air to the next fan to increase air compression as air went along the compressor. This added complexity in many ways.
Griffiths went for the more complex axial-flow. He also laid down a contra-rotating compressor, but Metrovick did not go down that path. The more powerful F.2 was used to fly the Meteor plane but considered unreliable at that stage, so Whittle's centrifugal engine was used. The F.2 was more reliable than the German Jumo, but the British would never put a plane in the air with such an unreliable under-developed engine. Wiggin in Birmingham were commissioned to develop high temperature resistant alloys as the jet engines were being developed. The Germans had no such programme. The F.2 ended up as the post war Sapphire being built under licence in the USA as the J65, powering the: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Grumman F-11 Tiger, Martin B-57 and the Republic F-84F Thunderstreak.
It took the French a wasted *eight* years to get the German design reliable, which by that time they had discarded many of the German engine concepts. The French airliner, the Sud Aviation Caravelle, used Rolls Royce Avon engines the French engines, based on German designs, were so good.
My Father flew Meteors in 56 squadron, when they were based at Waterbeach. When I found this film, I quickly went through his old log books to see if he'd flown this particular aircraft. Sadly he hadn't.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 No fortunately he survived, although not incident free!
@@sandervanderkammen9230 The Gloster Meteor, like all the new jet aircraft was pioneering new technologies and new aeronautical problems. There were lots of mishaps with them all. It was not a problem peculiar to the Meteor. To claim this, as you repeatedly do, is mis-information. Your determined promulgation of mis-information makes you a liar.
Lockeheed's P-80 was operational at the beginning of 1945, only a handful actually in service but didn't see any combat.
Operational? No, not really... of the 4 P-80s send to Europe 2 crashed and the other 2 were grounded in January
1945 and did not return to service until after the war ended.
the museum piece shown here is painted in silver, beautiful
Love the Meteor!! Miss seeing them fly here in the UK. Saw the NF11 variant fly in 2015. It is now at Bruntingthorpe with now taxiable engines. Her airworthy ones were given to the airworthy example in the USA. I know that Martin Baker has 2 modified examples used for ejection seat testing
They've got a model of one in the M1 roundabout at Lutterworth. I used to work at Bruntingthorpe; I knew they had a Vulcan but had no idea they also had the Meteor.
They have got one flying at the Air Museum in Temora, NSW Australia. Quite a beautiful plane done in a silver gloss finish. Watched her perform at a couple of airshows.
Absolutely gorgeous jet !
That was wonderfully interesting thank you.
Love your work 👍
Odd that while describing jet fighters, you included footage of the Me 163, a rocket-propelled fighter...
It is a jet
@@williamzk9083 Wrong. The 163 is a rocket not a jet.
@@SuperHeatherMorris Yet a jet of combustion gases is emitted from the rocket motor just as it is from a turbojet.
@@williamzk9083 I think it is generally accepted that a jet engine (the shorted form of turbojet) is an air breathing engine where air is compressed, fuel is burned to increase temperature and energy and some of the resulting gas stream is used to drive a turbine which in turn drives the compressor. Air is the working medium and the fuel is used to heat it.
A rocket motor does not use air, the burned propellant products are the only thing that comes out of the exhaust.
@@williamzk9083 Rockets and jets are very different, or do you think the Apollo rockets were using big jet engines?
Another major difference between the me262 and the meteor, was the difference is engine design. Where the 262 used the now, common axial flow style engine, the meteor used centrifugal jet engines, more like how an apu works, which was the reason for the large bulbous nacelles
Interestingly the first German jet was engine were Heinkel engines which were centrifugal. The swept wing fighters following on from the me 262 such as P.1011, Ta 183 and BV.209 all relied on the HeS 011 engine which had a “diagonal compressor” which was centrifugal but faired so that the air exited axially instead of radially. The air subsequently went through 3 axial stages. This engine like the British centrifugal engines was highly resistant to turbulent intakes. However because it was of a fairly small diameter direct burial in the wing with leading edge intakes was hoped for in some designs. This engine was also to allow installation at the wing roots of planed deep wing me 262
At 73 I had no idea these or any useful jets existed that early in WWII! Thank you for the information!
The only successful jet fighter in operational service during WW2 is the Messerschmitt Me-262
@@WilhelmKarsten Wrong, this video clearly states that the Meteor was successful and in operational service during WW2. Unlike the Me262 which is a converted piston engined fighter, the Meteor was designed to take advantage of the jets which which proven. Unlike the 262's which, while exhibiting what would prove to be the more versatile design direction, were not actually fit for purpose since engineering and materials had not yet be developed to make that design viable.
@@crinolynneendymion8755 *YOU'RE JOKING RIGHT?*
@@crinolynneendymion8755 The Messerschmitt Me-262 was the only successful jet fighter in operational service during WW2.
The Messerschmitt Me-262 was conceived from inception to be a jet fighter capable of 1,000 km/h as part of _Projekt 1065_
The Gloster _"Meat Box"_ was hastily converted from a twin propeller driven nightfighter design to be powered by two Bristol Centuarus engines.
The Messerschmitt Me-262 was highly successful in combat... the Meatbox only killed British pilots during WW2.
Any questions lad?
@@crinolynneendymion8755 The Meatbox had very primitive centrifugal compressor turbojets engines that were an evolutionary dead-end and obsolete on arrival.
All modern jet aircraft use axial compressor turbojet engines based on the Messerschmitt Me-262 engines.
Britain was 10 years behind Germany in jet engine technology
Thanking you for sharing a peace of worlds history 🌿
The Me262's wing was swept back primarily to maintain it's center of gravity and only secondary was it's high speed effectiveness.
..learning is never a waste of time..!!
I like the P80 most, out of the first jets. With the fuselage holding the engine and intake mounting, it was the most like how future jets would be. The trainer version being used so long is another point to the soundness of the design. Yes, the wings were straight, but the 262 had little sweep and the reasons were for c of g balance as said elsewhere in the comments. The Meteor is still a nice plane though.
The P-80 was the second generation US jet fighter. The Bell P-59A was the first. Only the P-80 flew in Europe during WW2 however.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 The Me262 was NEVER capable of supersonic flight. It was uncontrollable above Mach 0.86 because of control reversal due to a too flexible structure.
Basically if you pushed it to Mach 1 it would disintegrate just like a 737 or Airbus A320 with the wings ripping off.
Both have the same wing sweep as the Me262 and similar critical Mach numbers.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 The Me262 never had a stabilator.
It had a conventional horizontal tail and elevator assembly - like the X-1 before it was rebuilt with a stabilator like the M.42 design. The Me262 didn’t even have a trim adjustment on the horizontal tail for Mach tuck compensation. Both the RAF and the Red Army Airforce tested the Me262A and found them dangerously uncontrollable above Mach 0.84.
The highest speed recorded for a Me262 was for the specially modified Me262V9 which hit 975km/h (606mph). Most Me262’s were much slower due to high drag additions to the aircraft.
The Me262HGIII project only really shared the number with the Me262 production version and that was what was wind tunnel tested to Mach 0.96 but never built.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 "The progression of the original design was delayed greatly by technical problems with the new jet engine. Because the engines were slow to arrive, Messerschmitt moved the engines from the wing roots to underwing pods, allowing them to be changed more readily if needed. That turned out to be important, both for availability and maintenance.[18][19] Since the BMW 003 jets proved heavier than anticipated, the wing was swept slightly, by 18.5°, to accommodate a change in the center of gravity.[18]"
Wikipedia says this with citations
@@sandervanderkammen9230 the idea that the 262s wings allowed for supersonic flight is not supported by any understanding of aerodynamics. If it was, then high subsonic speed aircraft like the F-86 would not have adopted higher sweep. Higher sweep brings along with it a number of issues such as twisting forces on wing tips. There is no incentive to have higher sweep and introduce such issues if lower sweep is adequate. The other option is very thin, short wings (M.52, X.1, F104) which the 262 did not have.
Really interesting video and jet. Thank you.
Ironic that the early Meteor was slower than some of the piston engine fighters of the time
It was faster than most at the time especially at low altitude where it was faster than a Tempest, Spitfire or P 51.
@@barrierodliffe4155 Maximum speed 412 mph figure it out for yourself.
@@mothmagic1 That was at low sea level which was faster than even the Tempest and it did 440 mph at 20,000 feet, that was the FI or pre production version, soom replaced by the much faster F III.
I heard that the Luftwaffe General of Jet Fighters said after the war that the ideal jet fighter of that period would be an ME262 airframe coupled with the engines from the Gloster Meteor.
Luckily the never tried this. It would have been a disaster !
@@fritzwrangle-clouder6033 And even this was a stupid decision !
An other tale to pamper jealous Brits (:-)Better have a look at Mr EricBrowns opinion about the 262 (:-)
That'correct!It was Adolf Galland!
Adolf Galland said this since he was flying both the 262 and after the war in Argentina the Meteor. He clearly stated that the 262 was the much better airframe but the engines were too unreliable and hard to control. The early British centrifugal jet engines were simply better to handle and less prone to premature failure. Thrust wise they were in the same ballpark. Performance-wise the 262 was on a different level in comparison to the early wartime Meteors.
Interesting and informative.
A key difference between the early British and German jets was that the British were centrifugal flow and the Germans were axial flow. Centrifugal jets, at least for fighters, turned out to not be the way to go..
Sander,. The Germans weren't the only ones who had axial turbojets. The British company metropolitan vickers had an axial jet in 1942, the F2. It was far more reliable than any German jet. It was developed into the Bristol sidley sapphire.
But the German engine was not reliable...what's the point of being better when it breaks down so often
But at least the centrifugal was stronger.
@@keithwaites9991 lack of chrome and cobalt needed
Sadly no mention of the U15 (pilotless version of the F4) or U16/21 (pilotless version of the F8). I worked at Llanbedr 1969 to 1977 and worked on a number of U16's later redesignated D16. The last remaining D16 (WK800) is in the Boscombe Down Aircraft Collection at Old Sarum near Salisbury. WK800 served as a U21 in Australia for a number of years and then arrived back at Llanbedr in around 1972 and converted back to a D16.
Just trying to understand, but why would they have mentioned unrelated, much later designed planes?
And no mention that the Heinkel He 178 flew a week before the war broke out.. About 2 years before the Gloster E28. And while talking about jet planes, showing pictures of a rocket plane, Messerschmit Me 163.
no no no , we do not mention german jets !!
The Heinkel He 178 was NOT a serious aircraft , unlike the E28 that was in my view the first serious demonstraion of a high performing jet aircraft
Please do not forget HE 280.with ejection seats!
@@garrington120The He-178 AND the He-280 BOTH Flew successfully before the Gloster Whittle E.28.
@@WilhelmKarsten LMFAO . And what happened to them ?? NOTHING !! They were so poor with the POOR O,Hain pseudo Jet Engines they weren't developed any further , whilst the E28/39 developed into a fine test bed for early Whittle /Rover and R/R Jet Engines until 1944 with a top speed of over 450 MPH .
Maybe it's just me, but as soon as I saw the prone position prototype, my first thought was the classic 1950s Dan Dare comics, as they used the prone position for flying spaceships
Great video...👍
The engines on all early jets were under powered so the Meteor was typical of its time. But the engines were quickly improved as follows. 1943-44 Meteor MkI 2 x Welland 1,600lbs = 415mph ; 1944-45 Meteor Mk3 2 x Derwent 2 2,400lbs = 495mph and 1945- Meteor Mk4 2 x Derwent 5 3,500lbs = 580mph.
Centrifugal Turbojets were a dead-end technology on arrival... as thrust increases both the weight and drag increase disproportionate to thrust... aerodynamic performance only decreased with higher thrust.
@@WilhelmKarstenRubbish. The early Axial Flow engines were unreliable and and underpowered. Centrifugal-Flow engines were superior in tems of thust and reliability, they dominated fighter developement 1945-52
This did not change until the early 1950s with engines like the Armstrong-Siddley Sappire and Rolls Royce Avon arrived. These solved the issues of the BMW003 and Jum004, being both powerful and reliable engines.
@@billballbuster7186 Do you have any evidence to support your risible theory???
Clearly all of the technical and historical data shows that centrifugal compressor turbojets were inferior to axial types that are used exclusively today in jet aircraft.
Britain was obviously a decade behind in jet engine technology and completely lacked the ability to produce any flight rated axial turbojet.
The Sapphire and the Avon are postwar designs that did not exist prior to the dissemination of captured German jet engine technology to the UK.
@@billballbuster7186 The production of the BMW -003 and Jumo -004 predate Sapphire and Avon by a DECADE... they are clearly second generation post war technology.
The BMW 109-003/-018 series is the most successful and long lived jet engines in history... the first European engines to reach Mach 2 and are still in service today!
@@WilhelmKarsten Rubish The BMW team did work later for the French ATAR company. But the first French jet fighter, the Dassault Ouragan used the RR Nene Centrifugal-Flow engine in 1952. The Dassault Mystere I used the RR Tay also a Centrifugal Flow engine.
The ATAR 101D2 was the first working engine from ATAR. It was fitted to the Mystere IIC in 1954, Thats a full 9 years after WW2, so its ridiculous to claim its the same BMW003 engine. You are talking rubbish
Although it is true the Meteor and Me262 never met in combat, Adolf Galland flew the Meteor when he was a test pilot with the Argentine airforce. Having flown the Me262 during the war he was in an ideal position to compare both aircraft. I’m positive he claimed that the Me262 was more manoeuvrable whilst the Meteor was equipped with better and more reliable engines. Thus, if he could have fitted the Meteor engine to the Me262 airframe he would have had the best fighter in the world.
Galland never said this , it`s just propaganda. Mr Eric Winkle had a different story to tell (:-)
Do remember the engines in the meteor had radial flow, while the 262 had axial flow. There is a huge drag on those RR engines, specially on pylons.
Also the issues with 262s engines were due to german metallirgy during the war, having issues accesing to certain materials. Postwar 262 were improved and were very reliable.
@@Coyote27981 What post war Me 262? Czechoslovakia tried but gave up, no one else got far with the German jet engine designes before giving up.
Excellent documentary! 😊👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏😊👍👍
That speed delta to the 262 is a bit of a surprise.
No mention that a Meteor kicked off the Suez Crisis in 1956. I would think that was worth at least an acknowledgement.
Oh yes it was one of the few Meteors that did not fell out of the sky
The Meteor was a very good first-time jet fighter for England. The Meteor got out too late to assist the legendary Spitfire fighter airplane. The Meteor saw air-to-air combat in the Korean War. Wiping out all the prop-planes of the Communist with no trouble. I have read accounts of the Meteor tangling with the Mig 15 later in this war. A very badly underrated jet fighter, on parity with the German Me-262, and with later improvements, surpassed the 262. Thanks for this video on a jet fighter not often spoke of in the jet fighter circles.
To be frank: the war had passed the Spitfire by too. It lacked ranged. The RAF had obtained hundreds of Thunderbolts and shipped them to India. The war ended before they were required. The RAAF had found the Spitfire unsuitable in Pacific. They operated Beaufighter effectively and were planning to build a variant of P-51.
Spitfire wasn’t designed with range in mind. It was an interceptor not a long range escort or ground attack platform.
@@russellmiles2861 Later marks of the Spitfire had much improved range. They were even touted as bomber escorts into Germany, but the RAF didn't like the idea.
@@russellmiles2861 The RAAF did have some success in the Pacific with the Spitfire, and their pilots preferred them as fighters to other types like the P40 and P39. The Australians problems were mainly with the clapped-out Mk.V aircraft they initially obtained. Their Mk.VIIIs that arrived later were very satisfactory.
Me 262 reading this would do a "Meteor" ie. falling out of the sky !
There were mock combats with ME262s, Meteors, and the P/F 80.
This was excellent!!
Talk about the Meteor F3 not the F1. F3 at the end of 1944/early 45 had a top speed of 495 mph at sea level and 525 mph at altitude
I read somewhere that they discovered that lengthening the nacelles on the meteor delivered a speed increase of around 150kmh. Which seems like a heck of a lot!
The Meteor was a beautiful aircraft.
Also, unlike the Me 262, the Meteor's engines didn't have to be rebuilt constantly.
@@robertbruce1887 Easy to preserve engines when you are not even fighting
@@donaldhysa4836 In service and only not fighting because the Luftwaffe never came up to play, I suppose the Me 262 had enough trying to fight Spitfires and losing.
@@barrierodliffe4155 you were and will always be lucky the americans came to save you
The swept wing does not make the planes more maneuverable. It allows them to deal with transonic speeds better.
This is a simplified approach. During maneuvers g-loads may be extreme what causes the wing to produce more lift, what causes the flow to increase on the upper side of the wing, what causes the airflow on the upper wing surface to get sonic.
The English preferred to integrate the engines into the wing (Meteor, Comet).
This is evidence that transsonic airflow was not understood by the English.
Never touch the upper wing surface - flow on upper and lower surface is not even !
Nowadays engines are mounted on pylons (a lot better).
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Not false at all. It depends on the speeds that the aircraft are flying at. Swept wings in themselves do not automatically mean an aircraft is more manurable.
@@fritzwrangle-clouder6033 I must admit that there are often design features that I do not understand such as a negative V on the wings of the F-104 or the negative V on the Phantoms horizontal stabilizer. Most likely these features resulted from wind tunnel tests.
Recently I asked one of the technicians about the negative V of F-104 and he could not provide an answer.
It should also be noted that that the SR-71 is not a regular airplane flying for extended periods of time in the mach 0.7 - 0.8 regime. But nowadays airliners do and these were the speeds early jets were designed for.
Besides he SR-71 has a prominent strak on the outer wing section what might have been designed to avoid flow separation in the area of the engines.
The MIG-31 has quite a clean upper wing surface.
It is also not so clear what compromises are acceptable for special purpose aircraft like the SR-71.
The most critical speeds are these close to mach one where portions of airflow get supersonic while the aircraft itself is still subsonic.
Nice one Liam! I’m making the Airfix one actually.
I have read (probably something by Alfred Price) that the wing sweepback on the Me262 was to correct for engine weight. It was realised late in the design process that the weight limit of the engines would be substantially exceeded due to poor manufacturing and inferior materials. The sweepback was about 17º not enough to affect compressibility which needs about 30º. The Me262 was an aerodynamically sophisticated design, benefiting from the best wind tunnel available at the time, while the Meteor was basically a piston-engine fighter with jet engines put in. One must look at the wing and tail profiles, thickness-to-chord ratios etc. rather than just the sweepback. The systems engineering on the Me262 was reputed to be terrible, while it was quite good on the Meteor bar the non-functioning armament which was a common occurrence in the beginning. The Me262 engines had about the same thrust as the ones on the Meteor but weighed nearly twice as much. They were taken up post-war by the French, together with the relevant BMW engineers, and developed into the SNECMA Atar, making use of metallurgic knowledge developed by the British and high standards of manufacture. The third Meteor prototype, DG204 was built with axial-flow Metrovick F2 engines, it should perhaps be included in the piece that Britain did have jet engines with axial-flow compressors at the time, developed in parallel to the Whittle series. I would be very interested to know more details about the flight testing results of this aircraft. One may ask why were the axial-flow engines not adopted at that time, I can only speculate but they cost more to make, took longer to make and are nowhere as robust as the centrifugal compressor engines. The technology to forge and machine large, aerodynamically very efficient centrifugal blowers was quite mature, all the experience built up making rotors for superchargers bore fruit. Please can we know more about DG204? The biggest mistake with the Whittle engines was involving Rover in the process, they did not have the skill to respond in useful time and their attitude can only be described as predatory, and that is being kind. Once RR decided to get involved it took off properly, as it were. Frank Whittle had a really rough time during the transition to large scale manufacture, some wishing to appropriate his invention, others perhaps wishing to smother it.
please have a look at Eric Brown s Why the ME 262 was five years ahead of US and Britain here on YT you may believe him more than me ,being a german
@@michaelpielorz9283 The Me262 was aerodynamically many years ahead, the detail design had faults and build quality was low, a consequence of the lack of materials and enough skilled technicians at that stage of WW2. Typically the engines would burn out after as little as 16 hours and they were overweight. The fuel situation was not easy either as all pioneer jets had prodigious fuel consumption. The first US jet, a Bell product, was such a flop they didn't even try getting it into service. The Meteor was reasonably effective, very well made, but designed on the same premise as a piston-engine aircraft, very uninspired. Both the Meteor and the Me262 had to use two engines to get anything like the desired performance and both had poor acceleration. The people (in the UK) that were inspired and capable of thinking outside the box were the Miles company. For some reason they did not meet the political requirements of the Air Ministry, they were never part of the "gang". They were given the job of designing an emergency fighter with minimum use of strategic materials. They came up with the wooden M.20, in the process introducing the blister canopy and the concept of the "power egg". With a fixed undercarriage it nearly matched the speed of a Spitfire, was faster than the Hurricane, carried 12 guns and had a longer range. No orders were forthcoming. They carried on building trainers. Later they were given a project nobody else wanted, the first supersonic aircraft. The result was the M.52 which was finally allowed to be built in 1/3 rocket-powered scale models, during flight testing of these Mach 1,38 was reached in total control (the Me163 was not controllable near the speed of sound). Not bad when they didn't even have a supersonic wind tunnel. The Luftwaffe had one, and at the war's end a team was sent there with a tunnel model. The Americans appeared in force (as usual) to lift whatever they could from the facilities and tried to make off with the model. It was necessary for someone at the very highest level to order them to f**k right off. Their rapacious attitude extended to their Ally's achievements (but I do not think they removed toilets and light fittings like the Soviets did). In the end, the microcephalous Labour government cancelled the project and handed all the research results to the Americans, gratis. The power plant for the M.52 was to be a turbofan under design by Frank Whittle, another British first.
@@michaelpielorz9283 Eric Brown was a great test pilot but not infallible, he didn't mention that the Me 262 was an inferior fighter to the Spitfire, Tempest or Meteor.
@@barrierodliffe4155 What a load of delusional codswallop. The 262 outperforms the Meteor in every metric except maximum altitude, and was 100 mph faster. Not sure how you deduce the Meteor to be a better fighter, when the only things it killed during WW2 were test pilots. And comparisons to piston fighters are pointless. I suppose you know better than Winkle Brown because of your Dunning Kreuger syndrome, hmmm?
There is absolutely no evidence to support that absolutely ridiculous myth... it comes from a single, highly dubious source and contradicts all the historical evidence.
The Messerschmitt Me-262 was designed from inception to have swept wings there was no reason to alter the angle, it was selected by Adolf Busemann to have the best transonic performance and acceptable stall speed for the average runways in use.
It has a very sophisticated and advanced lift augmentation system for its time as well as the highest critical Mach number performance of any WW2 aircraft.
Its an irrefutable fact that 18.5° degrees is sufficient for supersonic flight, the Me-262 didn't just have swept wings, it had a swept empennage with a fly-by-wire (analog) Horizontal Stabilator designed specifically to counteract the effects of compressiblity and Mach tuck.
Actually the opposite is true, while the Messerschmitt Me-262 was an excellent flying aircraft it also had excellent combat performance.
The Gloster Meteor on the other hand was horribly bad, it was far more dangerous and posed a greater threat to RAF pilots than Luftwaffe pilots....
No need to speculate about the Metrovick... it was an unmitigated failure and Metropolitan Vickers never successfully developed any flight rated design, they abandoned jet engines completely in 1947 and returned to building steam engines.
Not true, Centrifugal Compressors have extremely poor aerodynamic performance compared to the Axial design, this is why the Miles M.52 was doomed to failure, no Centrifugal engine has ever been efficient enough to sustain Mach 1 in level flight.
The real genius of the British jet engine program was Adrian Lombard at Rover and Stanley Hooker at Rolls-Royce... Whittle proved consistently that he lacked the ability to make a flight rated engine that could pass the 100 hour PFTR required by the RAF.
Rolls-Royce Axial Compressor technology didn't take-off until after the war with help from captured German technology.
Cheers mate!
The Meteor F3 was reaching 490 mph and the F4 reached a world record speed of 606 mph in August of 1945.
It's good they fully switched to ejection seats as that looks like an incredibly tough plane to get out of without one if your going down, with those far back wings and massive jet engines your best bet would be to flip it I would think. If anyone knows what the standard practice to get out of these pre ejection seat was I'm very curious.
I assume it’s the obvious answer, being that it came fairly late, 1944. Which means, very few German aircraft about the place, also combined with the UK not needing to try to field jet aircraft, having many good propeller driven aircraft(as opposed to Germany, who were under air attack, ever trying to develop more advanced/faster aircraft, generally not succeeding), combined with concerns about crashed meteors falling into German or even Soviet hands.
So therefore, in conclusion, they were only used over friendly territory, due to intelligence concerns, and due to the stage of the war very few German aircraft were over friendly territory.
Because the RAF was engaged in offensive operations. They had a highly effective air fleet. The Enemy air force had been rendered ineffective and the Allied aircraft long able to strike where they choose at will.
What would a short range, unreliable interceptor offer. The project continue to be developed and provided a a wide range of effective aircraft in the early Cold War. Remember, few of Germany's jet fighters got to fly twice in battle.
RAF was h engaged killing civilians at night. the US in a two week campaign wrecked the german fuel complex ,so ending the war much earlier,needet just 3% of RAF bombs! So much for Mr Churchills and Mr Harris`Morale Bombing Campaign.