Post-war use of jet fighters by the Third Reich

90
Post-war use of jet fighters by the Third Reich

Work on the creation of combat aircraft with jet engines in Germany began in the 1930s, and thanks to the presence of a developed scientific and technological base, German designers during wartime were able to design, and production workers brought to serial production, several types of jet fighters.

After the end of World War II, German jet fighters were subjected to careful study, and aircraft assembled from German parts were used in the Czechoslovak Air Force for their intended purpose.



Messerschmitt Me 163 Comet


It is now quite obvious that fighter-interceptors with liquid rocket engines (liquid jet engines), having tanks with fuel and oxidizer on board, are a dead-end branch of the development of combat aviation. However, in the 1930–1940s, it seemed to designers that the liquid-propellant rocket engine, due to its high specific thrust impulse, was capable of providing excellent acceleration characteristics, and the influence of shortcomings, after gaining operational experience, could be minimized by introducing technical and organizational measures.

After the end of World War II, the use of liquid propellant engines in aviation followed the path of creating auxiliary power units. It was believed that a fighter with an additional engine, if necessary, could dramatically increase its speed and flight altitude, but this direction showed its futility in the late 1950s. Liquid jet engines have long been used on anti-aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles, and are still installed on launch vehicles designed to launch payloads into space and onto spacecraft flying beyond the Earth's orbit.

In Nazi Germany, several types of fighters equipped with liquid propellant engines were created. However, only the Me 163 was able to be brought to the stage of mass production and used in combat.

When designing the tailless jet interceptor, much attention was paid to making it as simple and inexpensive as possible. The wing had a wooden structure and variable sweep along the leading edge. Take-off was carried out on a drop-down trolley, and landing on a release ski.

To operate a jet engine, two components were used: fuel and oxidizer, the reserves of which were stored on board the aircraft. An extremely toxic mixture was used as fuel, consisting of 30% hydrazine hydrate and 58% methanol with an admixture of water (486 kg). The oxidizing agent was 80% hydrogen peroxide (1 kg). When fuel and oxidizer came into contact, they spontaneously ignited, which made it possible to do without an ignition system in the engine, but in case of leaks it repeatedly led to explosions and fires.

The first flight of the prototype using a jet engine took place in August 1941. Already during the first test flights, it was possible to reach 800 km/h, which exceeded the official world record at that time. The maximum result shown when starting from the ground was 920 km/h; there was not enough fuel for more, since the engine operating time was initially a little over 4 minutes.

The prototypes were equipped with a Walter HWK 509A-0 engine with thrust adjustment within the range of 300–1 kgf. The serial Me 500B-163 interceptors received a Walter HWK 1A-509 rocket engine with a thrust of 2–100 kgf, which provided a thrust-to-weight ratio of more than 1. The improved Me 700C-0,4 interceptor, which was not brought to mass production, was planned to be equipped with a Walter HWK 163C-1 two-chamber engine with a maximum thrust of 509 kgf.


The engines installed on experimental and production aircraft had systems for starting, stopping, throttling and supplying components in a given ratio, as well as various types of protection and blocking. The combustion chamber and nozzle were cooled by fuel, which then entered the pump inlet. In general, the design of the Walter HWK 509 family of rocket engines was very advanced for that time, but it would have been more suitable for a remotely controlled anti-aircraft missile.

The features of the two-component jet engine predetermined the main disadvantages of the Comet. The interceptor, which had very high acceleration characteristics, had a continuous engine operating time of no more than 8 minutes, which did not always allow it to take an advantageous position for an attack and, as a rule, excluded a repeated approach to the target. In addition, to adjust the flight speed it was necessary to have some experience.


Pilots tried to control the speed of approach to the target by turning the engine off and on in combination with performing slides and slides. But such manipulations required refined piloting techniques and were very complex and dangerous to perform. After stopping the engine, the interceptor pilot controlled it like a glider and landed on a retractable steel ski.


Me 163B-1

The serial interceptor Me 163B-1 had a maximum take-off weight of 4 kg. When flying at sea level, the jet engine provided a speed of 110 km/h, and at an altitude of 830 m – 3 km/h. Flight range is about 000 km. The service ceiling is 960 m. The aircraft could rise to an altitude of 200 m in less than 12 minutes.


The first examples were armed with two 20-mm MG 151/20 cannons with 100 rounds of ammunition per barrel. Most of the serial interceptors were equipped with two 30-mm MK-108 cannons with 60 rounds of ammunition per barrel. From the front, the Comet pilot was covered by a bow made of 15 mm steel armor and bulletproof glass. An armored back 8–13 mm thick protected from attacks from behind.

Data on the number of Me 163s produced vary, but most sources agree that there were no more than 400 units. German sources claim that Me 163 pilots shot down 16 aircraft (mostly heavy bombers). However, American historians confirm the loss of only 9 reconnaissance aircraft and bombers. In turn, American and British fighters claim 6 downed Komets; it is not known how many Me 163s were hit by the bombers’ side gunners. But most of the missile interceptors and their pilots were lost during flight accidents associated with piloting errors, explosions and fires caused by fuel leaks or abnormal engine operation.

English-language sources claim that at least 29 serviceable Me 163s fell into Allied hands. One interceptor was tested in flight by British captain Eric Brown in May 1945.


The preparation of the aircraft for departure from Khosum airfield was carried out by German ground personnel.


Interceptor Me 163B-1 at the American exhibition Wright Field in October 1945

Several Komets made it to the United States, but there is no information about their flights using liquid propellant engines.

By the end of 1945, ten Me 163 fighters were delivered to the Soviet Union (seven of them were two-seat trainers).


After studying these aircraft, they were deemed not worth copying. In the USSR in 1942–1943. The BI-1 fighter, equipped with a D1-A-1100 liquid-propellant rocket engine with a thrust of 1 kgf, running on nitric acid and kerosene, had already been tested, and all the main disadvantages of such an interceptor were known.

There are currently 10 surviving Me 163s on display in museums. In the mid-1990s, former Comet pilot Joseph Kurtz built a flying replica of the Comet.


This device does not have an engine, and it is lifted into the air by a towing aircraft. After uncoupling from the tug, it flies like a glider.

Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe


The only German jet fighter that was not only mass-produced in noticeable quantities, but also forced to be taken into account by taking part in hostilities, was the Me 262, also known as Schwalbe - “Swallow”.

The design of this aircraft began in 1938. Unlike a number of other experimental vehicles that were being worked on in Germany at that time, the Me 262 was considered from the very beginning as a combat fighter.

In the design version, turbojet engines were planned to be installed on the sides of the fuselage, which was explained by the desire of the designers to reduce drag and improve controllability in the event of failure of one turbojet engine. However, the existing engines were too large, and they were placed under the wing.

The final version of the Me 262 had a triangular fuselage section with rounded corners, and the width of the base of this triangle was noticeably greater than the height.


The wing sweep angle along the leading edge was 18º. However, the use of a swept wing on the Me 262 is not associated with the optimization of aerodynamic surfaces for high flight speeds, but with the need to ensure the required range of alignments and, as a consequence, the required margin of longitudinal stability of the fighter. Nevertheless, compared to other German jet and piston fighters, the Lastochka had very good aerodynamics.

Due to the high degree of novelty and the unavailability of the turbojet engine, the first Me 262V1 prototype, which took off on April 18, 1941, was equipped with a Jumo 12G piston 210-cylinder liquid-cooled engine with a power of 750 hp. With.

The plane, powered by two BMW P3302 turbojet engines and a piston engine, took off on March 25, 1942 and, due to the failure of both turbojet engines, almost ended in disaster.

It was possible to continue testing after receiving the Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engine. Compared to the BMW P3302, they were larger, and therefore the engine nacelles had to be redesigned.

Testing and development of the Me 262 was very difficult, and several prototypes were lost in flight accidents. Only at the beginning of 1944, 30 pre-production Me 262A were manufactured, intended for trial operation. In the summer of 1944, production Me 262A-1 fighters began to enter service with the troops.


Me 262A-1

The jet fighter with a maximum take-off weight of 7 kg was equipped with two Junkers Jumo 140B-004 turbojet engines with a thrust of 1 kgf each. Maximum flight speed is up to 900 km/h. Practical range – 855 km. Practical ceiling – 1 m.

The fighter's armament consisted of four 30-mm MK 108A cannons with 100 rounds of ammunition for the upper guns and 80 for the lower ones. Some fighters were armed with two 20-mm MG 151 cannons with 146 rounds of ammunition and two 30-mm MK 103 cannons with a total ammunition load of 144 rounds. 55-mm R4M missiles with an effective firing range of up to 1 m were used against air targets. Up to 500 such missiles could be suspended under the interceptor’s wing, mainly intended to combat enemy bombers.

Based on the Me 262A-1 fighter, a number of Me 262A-2 attack aircraft were manufactured. This aircraft also had the name Sturmvogel - “Petrel”. The Burevestnik's built-in armament consisted of two 30 mm cannons. The external sling could accommodate a bomb load weighing up to 1 kg. However, no combat successes of the Me 000A-262 “bombers” are known.

Based on the Me 262, a high-speed reconnaissance aircraft, two-seat night fighters, interceptor fighters equipped with an additional rocket engine, as well as “formation destroyers” armed with 50 mm cannons were also developed.

Before the surrender of the Third Reich, they managed to deliver a little more than 1 Me 400 of various modifications, mostly fighters. At the same time, there were usually no more than 262 aircraft available in combat readiness, due to logistical and operational problems, as well as a lack of qualified flight and technical personnel. All this affected the results of combat use. During air battles, pilots of Me 100 fighter modifications, according to German data, shot down about 262 enemy aircraft with their own combat losses of approximately 300 aircraft.


Pilots who mastered the Me 262 noted that this fighter was easier to fly than the piston-powered Bf 109. At the same time, the jet aircraft had a number of features that needed to be taken into account.

Despite the fact that the “Swallow” was significantly superior in flight speed to all production fighters of World War II, its acceleration characteristics left much to be desired. Jumo 004 engines had poor throttle response and often stalled or caught fire with a sharp increase in speed. Because of this, the Me 262 could not accelerate as quickly as a piston-engined fighter.

Taking into account the fact that the jet aircraft had poor horizontal maneuverability, battles on turns and low-altitude flights were contraindicated for it. Turbojet engines, with a designated service life of 25 hours, often failed earlier, and landing the Me 262 with one working turbojet engine was very dangerous. If the established maximum flight speed was exceeded, there was a risk of the aircraft being pulled into a dive or the airframe being destroyed.

Although the Lastochka turned out to be very “crude”, required fine-tuning and had a number of significant design flaws, when used as an interceptor fighter by the standards of the mid-1940s, this aircraft generally performed well. This was indirectly confirmed by tests of captured Me 262s in the UK and the USA.


Me 262A-1 undergoing testing in the UK

The British who flew the Me 262A-1 noted that this aircraft was faster and more stable in flight than the Gloster Meteor F1, and also had better visibility from the cockpit. In addition, the weaponry, much more powerful than that of the Meteor, predetermined the superiority of the Lastochka when used as an interceptor.

The Americans, as part of the LUSTY (Luftwaffe Secret Technology) program, organized a large-scale collection of the latest German missile and aviation technologies. Operation Sea Horse was organized to transport captured aircraft to the United States.

As part of this operation, the Americans leased the escort aircraft carrier HMS Reaper, built in the United States for Great Britain. The loading of captured German aircraft aboard the aircraft carrier took place in July 1945 in the port of Cherbourg. To protect the aircraft from the effects of salt spray, they were covered with a protective film.


In addition to ten Me 262s, the ship was loaded with 9 Fw 190 of various modifications, 1 Ta 152, 4 Ar 234, 3 He 219, 1 Bf 108, 3 Bf 109, 2 Do 335, 2 Bü 181, 1 WNF 342, 2 Fl 282, 1 Ju 88, 1 Ju 388 and 1 Ho 229 V3.

The German aircraft were first delivered to Newark Army Airfield in New Jersey and then distributed among flight test centers.

The Americans, having compared the Me 262 with the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, came to the conclusion that the Swallow was faster and better armed than their first production jet fighter.

The first Me 262A-2, which made an emergency landing on territory controlled by the Red Army, was delivered to the USSR in March 1945.


Me 262A-2 from the JG7 squadron made an emergency landing in Schweidemühl

In the summer of 1945, Soviet captured teams discovered three serviceable aircraft and several usable Jumo 004 engines. At least one Me 262 was tested at the Air Force Research Institute.


Based on the test results, representatives of the NKAP came up with a proposal to copy and launch the Me 262 into mass production to quickly reduce the USSR's backlog in the field of jet aviation.

In 1946, based on the Me 262, the Sukhoi Design Bureau created the Su-9 fighter. The only prototypes of these machines built were equipped with captured German Jumo-004B engines. The built-in artillery armament consisted of one 37 mm cannon with 45 rounds of ammunition and two 23 mm cannons with a total ammunition capacity of 200 rounds. In addition, provision was made for the suspension of two 250 kg bombs.

The experimental aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 6 kg at an altitude of 380 m in horizontal flight accelerated to 5 km/h. The practical flight range was 000 km. Service ceiling – 885 m.


Su-9

Along with other models of new technology, the Su-9 was demonstrated during an air parade held in Tushino near Moscow on August 3, 1947. But by that time, the Air Force leadership believed that the Soviet copy of the Me 262, despite a number of positive aspects, had no further development prospects, and preference was given to domestic designs.

The only country where Me 262 fighters were in service in the post-war period was Czechoslovakia. This happened due to the fact that at the end of World War II, the German leadership, in connection with the destructive Anglo-American bombings, decided to disperse production facilities for the production of jet fighters and move their assembly to Austria and the Czech Republic.

After the surrender of Germany, the Czech aircraft manufacturer Avia was left with a full range of components (including Jumo-004 aircraft engines), from which nine single-seat jet fighters and three training twins were assembled between 1946 and 1948.

Single-seat aircraft were designated S-92, double-seat aircraft - CS-92. The flight of the first S-92 jet fighter took place at the end of August 1946. All available S-92 and CS-92 were combined into the 5th Fighter Squadron, which was based at the Mlada Boleslav airfield, 55 km north of Prague.


S-92 jet fighters

Due to the small number and constant problems with Jumo-004 turbojet engines, the S-92 and CS-92 fighters did not have much combat value. Their operation was short-lived; all jet fighters assembled from German components were written off in 1950.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the American company Texas Airplane Factory, which specialized in the construction of copies of old aircraft with historical value, built flying replicas of the Swallow. In this case, original drawings and a restored Me 262B-1a that belonged to the US Navy were used.


A flying replica of the Me 262 fighter jet at the 2006 ILA Berlin Airshow

Since it was impossible to use the original Jumo-004 turbojet engines for many reasons, the replicas were equipped with General Electric J 85-CJ-610 engines with a thrust of 1 kgf each. A total of two aircraft were built. One copy was sold to a private collector from the USA; the buyer of the second aircraft was the German Messerschmitt Foundation.

Heinkel He 162 Volksjäger


If the Me 262 fighters had appeared earlier, were produced in large volumes and had been brought to the required level of reliability, then they could have had a significant impact on the course of hostilities and significantly reduced the effect of raids by American and British heavy bombers.

One of the factors preventing the mass production of the Me 262 was the high cost of production of this aircraft. Thus, the price of one “Swallow” approximately corresponded to the cost of four Bf 109G.

In this regard, as part of the Jägernotprogramm, which provides for the creation of an inexpensive and mass-produced air defense interceptor, Heinkel Flugzeugwerke proposed the He 162, also known as Salamander - “Salamander”, and Volksjäger - “People’s Hunter” or “People’s Fighter”.

According to the requirements of officials of the Ministry of Armaments, the "People's Fighter" had to be built from the best available materials and be cheap, and its assembly could be carried out by low-skilled labor.

The He 162 aircraft was created in an unprecedentedly short time; 90 days passed from the start of work until the completion of the prototype aircraft.

The first experimental He 162V1 flew on December 6, 1944. During a 20-minute flight, the prototype reached a speed of 835 km/h at an altitude of 6 m. Simultaneously with the testing of the prototype, preparations for serial production were underway.


Not 162V1

Since duralumin was sorely in short supply, the He-162's structure consisted mainly of wood. The He 162 had a monocoque structure made of light alloy, with a nose cone made of bent plywood. The wing was made of wood with plywood skins and removable metal wingtips. The tail, elevators and rudder were made of light alloy, and the keel was made of wood. The BMW 003 Sturm turbojet engine was bolted to the top of the fuselage.


He 162A-2

The serial fighter of the He 162A-2 modification had a maximum take-off weight of 2 kg. The BMW-800E-003 turbojet engine developed 1 kgf of afterburner thrust. At an altitude of 920 m, the maximum speed was 6 km/h. Practical range is about 000 km. Service ceiling - 900 m. The He 950A-12 interceptor was armed with two 000-mm MG 162/2 cannons with 20 rounds of ammunition per barrel; the He 151A-20 modification was equipped with two 120-mm MK 162 cannons with 1 rounds of ammunition per barrel. .

The release of He 162 received priority over all other weapons production programs. The planned production volume by May 1945 was to exceed 2 units. The assembly of the "People's Fighter" was to be carried out at five different aircraft manufacturing enterprises. For this purpose, the assembly plants were cooperated with more than 000 subcontractors, who were supposed to supply parts, components and individual units, such as wings, tails, engines, weapons, etc.

To ensure the production of He 162 under conditions of continuous bombing, most of the assembly areas were located underground. For example, such enterprises were built in old chalk and salt mines in Germany and Austria.


Underground He 162 assembly plant

However, due to interruptions in supplies, components and constant bombing, by the beginning of May 1945, Luftwaffe representatives had accepted approximately 120 vehicles, about a hundred ready-made interceptors remained in factories and warehouses, and another 500 vehicles were in the process of assembly.

There is no reliable information about the combat successes of the People's Fighters. According to German data, the He 162 shot down several British and American aircraft shortly before Germany's surrender. Our own losses were also very significant. In air battles, two He 162s were shot down, and more than ten aircraft crashed due to piloting errors, equipment failures and fuel consumption in the air.

The Salamander had a number of major shortcomings: the aircraft had very low directional stability, insufficient longitudinal stability at high speeds, a tendency to stall when flying at high angles of attack, excessive sensitivity of the rudders and low wing strength. With sudden evolutions of the control surfaces, the aircraft was prone to loss of control and, due to the threat of destruction, could not develop high speed near the ground.

After Germany's surrender, Soviet, American and British troops captured several dozen serviceable He 162s.


He 162A-2 interceptor at the RAF Farnborough test center

In 1945–1946 The Salamanders were tested in American, British, Soviet and French flight test centers.

In 1946, two He 162A-2s were tested in the USSR. The specialists of the LII NKAP generally did not rate Salamander very highly.


He 162A-2 interceptor being tested in the USSR

The report stated that the aircraft was difficult to control, had unsatisfactory flight characteristics, high drag, required a long take-off run and lost speed too quickly when the engine speed decreased.

At the same time, a number of technical solutions were considered worthy of attention. A revelation for Soviet designers was the pilot's catapult, powered by a squib. Retracting the landing gear and flaps using powerful springs was considered very ingenious. The thoughtfulness of the design solutions in the airframe and the manufacturability of individual components and assemblies were noted, which reduced the cost and simplified the manufacturing process.

Продолжение следует ...
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    29 December 2023 04: 54
    Take-off was carried out on a drop-down trolley, and landing on a drop-down ski.

    We have received many photographs of the take-off and landing of this miracle, and I was always pressed by the question why it was impossible to make a retractable landing gear, because such a “trolley” scheme is too complicated for the pilot, and the accident rate increases greatly, especially during landing. Well, the article, as always, is a plus!
    1. +15
      29 December 2023 05: 03
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      Take-off was carried out on a drop-down trolley, and landing on a drop-down ski.

      We have received many photographs of the take-off and landing of this miracle, and I was always pressed by the question why it was impossible to make a retractable landing gear, because such a “trolley” scheme is too complicated for the pilot, and the accident rate increases greatly, especially during landing. Well, the article, as always, is a plus!

      Just such a scheme is easier to implement, and most importantly, there is no need to carry dead weight in the form of a landing gear on board the fighter. With such a thrust-to-weight ratio of the rocket, the pilot does not care about the type of landing gear. It's like launching from a catapult. But this approach works for a fighter with a very limited resource, which is an ersatz wartime fighter.

      As for this publication, there is a huge qualitative contrast with the article about the MiG-21. good
      1. +7
        29 December 2023 05: 10
        Quote: Tucan
        Just such a scheme is easier to implement

        I will also add here that it is also cheaper, but this makes landing difficult in the first place, requiring much more skill from the pilot. And if the car is damaged during a battle, it also makes landing much more difficult!

        Quote: Tucan
        there is a huge qualitative contrast with the article about the MiG-21

        Yes, I noticed that wink
        1. +3
          29 December 2023 08: 55
          Just such a scheme is easier to implement, and most importantly, there is no need to carry dead weight in the form of a landing gear on board the fighter.

          For heavy disposable UAVs - that's it.
    2. +11
      29 December 2023 05: 16
      why couldn't they make a retractable landing gear?

      hi
      IMHO, the logic of creation was as follows: “let’s add a liquid propellant rocket engine to the tailless airframe.” But the ski was and is the usual way to land gliders - simply and safely.

      An extremely toxic mixture was used as fuel, consisting of 30% hydrazine hydrate and 58% methanol with an admixture of water (486 kg). The oxidizing agent was 80% hydrogen peroxide (1 kg). When the fuel and oxidizer came into contact, they spontaneously ignited.
      As far as I remember, in their memoirs the pilots described precisely this kind of fuel as their biggest fear when flying the Me163.
      Found: "...gave me the uniform necessary for training on the “flying bomb”. The equipment included such accessories as fur-lined boots, a headset with communication wires, a parachute, special gloves and much more. The main uniform was considered to be a jumpsuit made of special protective fabric! Fritz commented on the situation, anticipating my question:
      — When it becomes difficult to breathe, instead of getting out of the cabin, you will burn like a wick, because in such a suit you won’t be able to turn around very much!
      - What are you talking about? - I asked.
      - This happens sometimes. For example, if the fuel tank explodes! - he answered.
      I didn't need any further explanation
      !" http://militera.lib.ru/memo/german/ziegler_m01/text.html


      As always, many thanks to the author for the article. good
      1. +6
        29 December 2023 06: 54
        Quote: Wildcat
        But the ski was and is the usual way to land gliders - simple and safe

        For a glider, with its weight of just over one hundred kilograms, landing on skis, and even on a well-equipped platform, is both simple and safe, but for the Me-163, which weighs about two tons, this is guaranteed kirdyk... Respect to the author!
        1. +9
          29 December 2023 07: 03
          The problem was a little broader: the pilot had practically one attempt to land and in practice there could be no “second approaches”. So it made no difference - landing gear or skis, if the landing had to be done outside the airfield.
          But if you look at it very broadly, the idea of ​​attaching a liquid rocket engine and cannons (and some other necessary equipment) to an experimental airframe was a little strange from the very beginning: "It should be noted that when, after the war in the 60s, the first publications about the Me163 began to appear, the authors of which subjected the design of the interceptor to devastating criticism, this greatly surprised Alexander Lippisch. Responding to scientific criticism during one of the conferences of historians and participants in the events of the 30s and 40s, he, already a professor, told amateur scribblers that “at the time the development of the Me163 began, we could not even think that this machine would be used as a combat aircraft. At that stage of the work, our task was to study the region of high subsonic speeds, corresponding to the Mach number = 0,8–0,9, as well as to select the most optimal wing profiles. In essence, the Me163 was just another experimental aircraft, and that is why it did not have a landing gear in the generally accepted sense of the word, and the small capacity of its fuel tanks ensured flights only near the airfield..."" https://coollib.com/b/231725/read#t8
          1. +9
            29 December 2023 07: 17
            Quote: Wildcat
            the pilot had practically one attempt to land and in practice there could not be any “second approaches”

            That's the whole point! Such a system brought the pilot of this plane closer to the Japanese kamikaze pilot, leaving him with little chance, unlike the Japanese...

            Quote: Wildcat
            Our task was to study the region of high subsonic speeds corresponding to Mach number = 0,8–0,9, as well as the selection of the most optimal wing profiles

            This same expert went too far about the wing profile - at that time they did not yet understand why the plane, approaching the approximate Mach number, completely or partially lost control, and the pilot began to feel some kind of incomprehensible shaking. The understanding that the problem was in the wing profile itself came after the war, when engineers began to seriously study the relationship between the wing profile and the speed of the vehicle. I read somewhere that some aircraft designers even believed that modern aircraft architecture is a brake on further increasing speed...
            1. +8
              29 December 2023 08: 32
              As for shaking, the Germans never managed to solve this problem; their pilots were strictly forbidden to exceed the speed of 800 km/h. This problem was solved in the design bureau of P. O. Sukhoi. Once upon a time I read L. Kuzmina’s book “General Designer Pavel Sukhoi”.

              “The more the speed of the planes increased, the more they experienced air resistance. In front of an airplane flying at a speed of 800 km/h, the air was compressed, which caused the formation of air compression shocks and an increase in the so-called “wave” resistance. As a result of the occurrence of shock waves, the balance of the aircraft changed, and it was pulled into a dive. All these phenomena occurred at a flight speed close to the speed of sound, so the entire sum of these generally unpleasant phenomena was then called the “sound barrier.”

              “The conclusion was made as follows: a further increase in the aircraft’s speed is possible only by changing the shape of the wing - thick straight wings required replacement with thin swept wings.”
              “A swept wing worsens the gliding capabilities [107] of the aircraft, the landing speed increases - how to ensure a safe landing, how to reduce the mileage of the aircraft on the landing strip?
              At high speeds, a powerful air flow does not allow the pilot to get out of the cockpit on his own in the event of an accident. What to do?.. And there were a great many such problems. But they were all resolved."

              On the SU-9, for the first time, in addition to the catapult, we used a braking parachute due to the increase in mileage during takeoff and landing. Powder accelerators were used. It became easier for the pilot to control the plane; boosters were installed - hydraulic amplifiers.
              Thanks to the author for an interesting article.
            2. +4
              30 December 2023 00: 18
              Such a system brought the pilot of this plane closer to the Japanese kamikaze pilot, leaving him with little chance, unlike the Japanese...

              Yes, the pilots had, so to speak, German specifics: "....the so-called “strict diet” was nothing more than a preventive measure aimed at avoiding indigestible or gas-causing food from entering the body. In general, our body should not have contained those foods that could have worsened my health, because the body was already overloaded, mentally I sadly said goodbye to the idea of ​​​​enjoying my favorite pea soup with bacon in the near future.
              ...a very soft touch is required when landing. Failure to comply with this rule not only meant damaging the aircraft; this would certainly lead to the displacement of the pilot's vertebrae! We were told that a “dirty” landing or landing outside the airfield perimeter could easily lead to irreversible consequences for the pilot or a broken wing of the aircraft; the car could also stall, and as a result of the ignition of the rocket fuel remaining in the tanks, the pilot had no chance of salvation.
              ......Handling T and C fuel required extreme caution. Both liquids were colorless, and for this reason the tanks and containers in which they were contained were painted different colors. One day, an unlucky mechanic dumped several liters of fuel C into a container where the remains of fuel T were stored. He did not live long after this, at least not long enough to realize what a stupid thing he had done, but perhaps his carelessness saved others from repeating his mistake.
              .....Our peaceful conversation was interrupted by a whistle, similar to the blows of a whip, only several times stronger, and there was a feeling that the air was about to explode. The next second we were thrown into shock. The "Comet" exploded right on takeoff.... A terrible picture appeared before our eyes. Where just a minute ago the “comet” stood, ready to take off, now there was nothing but a dark spot on the ground. The remains of the plane were scattered over a radius of several hundred meters - nothing remained of the brand new fighter. Bitterness rose in our throats when we saw bloody tendons and bones stuck to a piece of metal that seemed to be the cockpit canopy. Then one of the technicians called us to a place eighty meters from the explosion; there he discovered a bare leg torn off below the knee. This is all that remains of our Walter!
              ....Having dropped fuel, the “comet” rushed towards the earth. The cabin cover came off and fell like a stone. ....But not everything was in order. The fighter seemed to be swinging from side to side, and now it began to fall faster and faster. Oleinik desperately tried to fly up again, but nothing worked! The plane could not land smoothly, and it fell down like a stone, swaying and wobbling, until it finally hit the ground, spinning like a top. The body flew out of the fighter, and at the same moment a white cloud of smoke appeared, behind which fiery tongues of flame appeared. I could not find a truck to get to the scene of the accident, but fire crews had already approached Oleynik’s plane and were putting out the fire, and the ambulance doctors, who instantly arrived to help Oleynik, were already carefully transferring him onto a stretcher to carry him to the car. "Crap! - I thought. “What a terrible fate!”... I sat in the airfield headquarters, falling into despair and depression, chain-smoking and waiting for the phone call, at the same time being afraid to hear it. Finally, it rang out and someone else picked up the phone. A moment later, having disconnected, he said: “He’s lucky!” Spinal fracture. Nothing dangerous!"
              http://militera.lib.ru/memo/german/ziegler_m01/text.html
    3. +5
      29 December 2023 09: 35
      Quote: Bongo
      The prototypes were equipped with a Walter HWK 509A-0 engine.

      hi
      Thanks for the article, I learned something new.
      For example, about Helmuth Walter engines
      Before that, I read about rocket engines from BMW and Junkers.
      They later worked with them in the USSR
    4. +2
      29 December 2023 18: 52
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      why it was impossible to make a retractable landing gear,

      This was the first experience and they simply did not have time, they tried to use everything they could in battle... But they also tried to develop improved versions, for example the Me-263, which already had a retractable landing gear
  2. 0
    29 December 2023 06: 44
    Liquid jet engines have long been used on anti-aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles, and are still installed on launch vehicles designed to launch payloads into space and

    Jet? Maybe it's still rocket?
    1. +6
      29 December 2023 07: 00
      Quote from Ponimatel
      Jet? Maybe it's still rocket?

      Rocket - they are also jet. There are only solid fuel and liquid fuel. Well, there are also electric ones, but this is already exotic...
      1. 0
        29 December 2023 07: 01
        Surprised by the answer.
        The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.
        1. +4
          29 December 2023 07: 04
          Quote from Ponimatel
          Surprised by the answer

          The text of your comment is too short and opinion of the site administration in my opinion it does not provide useful information...
          1. -1
            29 December 2023 07: 06
            If you have the opportunity to take your opinion stronger and stay with it.
            1. +4
              29 December 2023 07: 23
              Quote from Ponimatel
              If you have the opportunity to take your opinion stronger and stay with it.

              My opinion is that it’s like the flu. He can and should live inside you...
              1. -1
                13 January 2024 22: 15
                Unfortunately, some carriers “inside” are so happy that they dream of sharing.
      2. +7
        29 December 2023 09: 22
        Quote: Luminman
        Rocket - they are also jet. There are only solid fuel and liquid fuel.

        And yet there is a historically (!) established difference, originating from gunpowder rockets! The operating principle of various rocket (jet) engines is the same; but historically (!) it happened that engines that “required” to carry reserves of fuel and oxidizer on an “aircraft” were more often called rocket engines (LPRE, solid propellant rocket engine); and engines that receive oxidizer from the air acquired the name air-breathing engines (PuVRD. Ramjet, TRD.TVD) So, don’t muddy the waters in a historically stable environment! am
        1. +3
          29 December 2023 10: 00
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          It turned out that engines “requiring” to carry reserves of fuel and oxidizer on an “aircraft” were more often called rocket engines (LPRE, solid propellant rocket engine); and engines receiving oxidizer from the air acquired the name air-breathing

          In any of these engines, thrust is created solely by the jet stream flowing from the nozzle, which is the propellant. The exception is the theater of war. Everything else is insignificant. Example: oil is poured into the gas tank of a moped, and an airplane with an air-cooled cylinder has its own oil system. What is the difference? The difference is in the method of delivering oil to the working environment. This does not make any fundamental difference in the design of the engine, except for the size of the structure...
          1. +3
            29 December 2023 19: 27
            Quote: Luminman
            In any of these engines, thrust is created solely by the jet stream flowing from the nozzle, which is the propellant.

            Why convince me of this if I mentioned something similar in my previous comment ( The operating principle of various rocket (jet) engines is the same; )? request
            Quote: Luminman
            Everything else is insignificant. Example: oil is poured into the gas tank of a moped, but an airplane with an air-cooled cylinder has its own oil system. What is the difference? The difference is in the method of delivering oil to the working environment. This does not make any fundamental difference in the design of the engine,

            But you guessed it right! By the way, this example, in my opinion, is not very successful! Like the oil in the gas tank of a moped, like the oil in the oil system tank - all this is located in the vehicle! And between rocket and air-breathing engines there is a more significant (!) “fundamental” difference! Because air-breathing engines can only operate in the air (atmosphere) ... (there is no oxidizer in an airplane!) ... while Liquid rocket engine, solid propellant rocket engine - all-medium! They can work both in the atmosphere and in an airless environment (space, under water...); both the fuel and the oxidizer - all with you! Isn’t this of fundamental importance?! fool
  3. +11
    29 December 2023 06: 58
    Thank you Sergey - the article is cool, there are no words, only emotions!!!
    All the good days!
  4. +8
    29 December 2023 08: 32
    Unlike a number of other experimental vehicles that were being worked on in Germany at that time, the Me 262 was considered from the very beginning as a combat fighter.
    Galland, in his memoirs, argued that Hitler was determined that the Me-262 should be a bomber and because of this, it was launched into production a year later. As a result, it was no longer possible to achieve a turning point in the battle with the Allied bombers. And so, of course, as an interceptor of Allied strategists, it was ideal. Lightning strike and go home, the covering fighters just clap, bewildered.
    1. +5
      29 December 2023 11: 47
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      Galland, in his memoirs, argued that Hitler was determined that the Me-262 should be a bomber and because of this, it was launched into production a year later.

      Hitler's absurd decision to use the Me 262 as a strike vehicle was made after the aircraft, originally developed as a destroyer, was almost ready.
      1. 0
        29 December 2023 13: 11
        Why absurd? Me-262 fighters could shoot down some Western aircraft, but given the overwhelming superiority the West had in their numbers and the speed of producing new ones, they would not have made any difference. But Me-262 bombers could disrupt the landing in Normandy and cancel the second front.
    2. -5
      29 December 2023 13: 12
      The trick is that the Me-262 fighters could shoot down some Western aircraft, but given the overwhelming superiority the West had in their numbers and the speed of producing new ones, they would not have made any difference. But Me-262 bombers could disrupt the landing in Normandy and cancel the second front.
      1. +4
        29 December 2023 13: 28
        Quote: Kmon
        The trick is that the Me-262 fighters could shoot down some Western aircraft, but given the overwhelming superiority the West had in their numbers and the speed of producing new ones, they would not have made any difference. But Me-262 bombers could disrupt the landing in Normandy and cancel the second front.

        What successes have the Me-262 achieved as bombers?
        1. +1
          29 December 2023 13: 50
          Autumn 1944 The qualities of “Me.262” emerged as a highly effective weapon for the destruction of particularly important objects. Beginning on September 26, pilots of the Me.262 of the 51st Fighter-Bomber Squadron bombed the bridge at Nymwegen, which had been captured intact by the British. On the first day, only one plane was lost, hit by anti-aircraft artillery. Attempts to intercept jet bombers by fighters, as a rule, ended in failure. On September 30, at about 09.30, a patrol of six Spitfires met in the same vicinity two Me.262 with suspended bombs, heading towards the bridge. The Canadians immediately rushed at the German bombers, who immediately dropped their payload and emerged from the attack at full speed. Only on October 13 did the British manage to win their first victory over Me.262. Pilot-officer Robert Cole, who flew the Tempest, chalked up a Messerschmitt jet. Fighters and anti-aircraft guns could provide virtually no resistance to jet bombers. "Me.262" acted alone, reaching the target at an altitude of 8000 m during the day, and dropped bombs from a shallow dive from an altitude of 6000 m. With such high flight speeds and changes in altitude, anti-aircraft guns were useless. Jet Messerschmitts could act with almost impunity, which aroused the ire of the opposing side. No air cover of the bridge could solve this problem. The latest Spitfires Mk.XIV and Tempests were brought in to patrol around the bridge, but they did not achieve any noticeable success. The attacks on the bridge were followed by several daring attacks on British airfields. 1th of October 1944 group "Me.262" attacked the Grave airfield near Nymwegen. As a result of the lightning strike, the Germans destroyed five Spitfires on the airfield and seriously damaged three more. There were heavy losses among pilots and ground personnel. The commander of the 80th squadron, R., was seriously wounded. Acworth. All German aircraft returned safely to base. The next day, Me.262 again attacked the British at the Grave, where in the meantime the 80th and 274th squadrons of Tempests and the 130th and 402nd squadrons of the newest Spitfires Mk.XIV had arrived. The jet bombs wreaked havoc on the ground crew and destroyed at least seven Spitfires. And again, the anti-aircraft gunners, taken by surprise, were not distinguished by their reaction or accuracy. Already at the very beginning, several firing positions were suppressed by a hail of deadly shrapnel. The Tempest pilots tried to intercept those returning to the Me.262 base, but the jet vehicles leaving at maximum speed turned out to be an unattainable goal. The "finest hour" of jet bombers was Operation Bodenplatte ("Baseplate") on New Year's Eve 1945. "Me.262" from the 51st Bomber Squadron, together with "Me.109" and "FV-190" from the 3rd Fighter Squadron, attacked the English airfield in Endhoven, where 50 Spitfires and Typhoons were destroyed. This was the most effective strike on the airfield in the entire Bodenplatte operation. In fact, jet bombers fought for air supremacy, not shooting down single Allied aircraft, but destroying them at airfields - another argument in favor of building the Me.262 as an attack aircraft. One of the most famous attacks by jet bombers was the attack on the bridge in Remagen. This was the only bridge over the Rhine that the Allies received intact. 7 March 1945 city The American 9th Panzer Division approached the Ludendorff Bridge in Remagen and captured it, managing to prevent an explosion. The bridge was immediately protected from water and air. Omar Bradley wrote: “So much anti-aircraft artillery was transported to the bridgehead, the density of fire of which was only two times lower than the density of anti-aircraft fire that we created on the bridgehead in Normandy. Barriers were stretched upstream across the Rhine to protect the bridge from underwater and radio-controlled mines. Patrols were posted on both sides of the bridge to ensure that enemy saboteurs did not infiltrate the bridge as part of our columns. Barrage balloons were raised into the air from heights on both banks of the Rhine, and depth charges were dropped into the water to prevent enemy demolition divers from approaching the bridge unnoticed.” [90– P.554] However, for protection against jet bombers, all these measures were useless. To destroy the bridge, a special group was formed, consisting of eight Arado-234 bombers (from the 76th Bomber Squadron) and about thirty Me.262s from the I Group of the 51st Bomber Squadron. The only obstacle for the Me.262 jets was the lack of a guided weapon - diving, like the Yu-87, was impossible on them. In general, the actions of German jet aircraft resembled the actions of piston bombers without fighter and anti-aircraft counteraction. The first raid was not successful, nor were the next twelve. Only Colonel Robert Kowalski on the Arado 234 managed to damage one bridge span, but American engineering units quickly fixed it. But in the end, the heavily damaged bridge collapsed on its own, from the nearby explosion of a heavy shell.

          Source: https://statehistory.ru/books/4/Isaev-Aleksey_Desyat-mifov-Vtoroy-mirovoy/11?ysclid=lqqigsu3dh894954966
          1. +4
            29 December 2023 14: 36
            I personally would not refer to A. Isaev. For me he is not an authority.
            Here's what they write about his work online:
            The author's main drawback is that he writes about something he doesn't understand. But he doesn’t understand the word “at all” in military affairs. But he so wants to bring something new to his work that he does not pay attention to the assessments that experts before him gave to events.

            He writes like an abstract artist - because that’s how he “sees”, and the fact that his vision does not agree with the facts is all the worse for the facts. For A.V. Isaev, primary documents are not a source of information, but materials that need to be arranged in an order that suits him. Because he edits them and adjusts them to his vision, partially distorting them and partially misinterpreting them.

            You can read A.V. Isaev only if you have at hand the materials to check each paragraph of his text, because lying is the only thing he seems to know perfectly.
            1. 0
              29 December 2023 15: 31
              Who writes? Random blogger? I also have authority. Unlike them, Isaev is a specialist. Candidate of Historical Sciences and employee of the Institute of Military History.
              1. +3
                29 December 2023 15: 37
                Unfortunately, there are a lot of such reviews, and what Isaev writes, to put it mildly, is not always confirmed by other sources.
              2. +3
                30 December 2023 19: 43
                Quote: Kmon
                Unlike them, Isaev is a specialist. Candidate of Historical Sciences and employee of the Institute of Military History.

                Regarding the Me-262, I will quote from Galland’s book. He was a categorical opponent of this aircraft as a bomber
                In fact, the Me-262 had neither bomb sights nor devices for dropping bombs. According to its flight data and safety conditions, it was completely unsuitable for dropping bombs on a target; diving or gliding were also excluded due to the inevitable excess of the maximum permissible speed. At a speed of 1000 km/h the plane became uncontrollable. At low altitudes, fuel consumption was so high that the operational range became too short, so attacks from low altitudes were also out of the question. This meant that bombing from high altitudes remained, and at least a large city was needed as a given target in order to hit it with a certain probability.
                1. -2
                  30 December 2023 19: 53
                  Isaev analyzed Galland’s bias, see the book.
                  1. +3
                    30 December 2023 20: 10
                    Quote: Kmon
                    Isaev analyzed Galland’s bias, see the book.
                    Galland is an expert in his field, universally recognized. Along with Pokryshkin and Mölders. That’s why Isaev somehow doesn’t fit in this row, it’s not about history, but about technique
            2. +2
              29 December 2023 16: 52
              Quote: Bongo
              For A.V. Isaev, primary documents are not a source of information, but materials that need to be arranged in an order that suits him. Because he edits them and adjusts them to his vision, partially distorting them and partially misinterpreting them.

              It would be nice to support such statements with specific examples of “perversion” and “distortion” of primary documents.
  5. Des
    +3
    29 December 2023 09: 15
    Thanks for the great article.
  6. +9
    29 December 2023 10: 13
    Several Komets made it to the United States, but there is no information about their flights using liquid propellant engines.

    In order to master the control of an aircraft, in the United States, a series of gliding flights without using an engine were organized at the Muroc Army Airfield (today Edwards Air Force Base). The Me-163 was towed by a B-29 as a glider. Tests did not reach flights using the engine, as the design of the Me-163 began to deteriorate. Today the plane resides in the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
  7. +2
    29 December 2023 10: 13
    Despite the fact that the “Swallow” was significantly superior in flight speed to all production fighters of World War II, its acceleration characteristics left much to be desired. Jumo 004 engines had poor throttle response and often stalled or caught fire with a sharp increase in speed. Because of this, the Me 262 could not accelerate as quickly as a piston-engined fighter.


    Oh well. All turbojet engines have poor throttle response compared to PD engines. And the problem was with imperfect fuel automation, which in fact did not exist. In modern turbojet engines, no matter how you move the throttle, the automatic fuel supply will increase as the engine speed increases.
    1. +5
      30 December 2023 13: 05
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      All turbojet engines have poor throttle response compared to PD engines. And the problem was with imperfect fuel automation, which in fact did not exist.

      Turbojet engines in principle have low thrust (and low efficiency) at low speeds. This is their generic feature, due to the physics of the process. Therefore, yes, the maximum speed is high (the higher it is, the better the engine pulls), but the dynamics at low speeds are depressing.
      1. -2
        31 December 2023 09: 49
        Turbojet engines in principle have low thrust (and low efficiency) at low speeds. This is their generic feature, due to the physics of the process. Therefore, yes, the maximum speed is high (the higher it is, the better the engine pulls), but the dynamics at low speeds are depressing.


        You've confused this with ramjet engines. Turbojet engines have problems at speeds close to and above the speed of sound.
        The throttle response of a turbojet engine is associated with the spin-up of the turbocharger, where the moment of inertia is quite large.
        1. +2
          31 December 2023 12: 27
          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          You've confused this with ramjet engines.

          No. The ramjet engine does not even start at low speeds. The turbojet engine starts, but operates with low efficiency. The compression ratio at the inlet is too low, the jet flow rate at the outlet is too high.

          Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
          Turbojet engines have problems at speeds close to and above the speed of sound.

          No. Problems with turbojet engines begin at speeds above Mach 2. And here we are talking generally about subsonic aircraft.
          1. 0
            31 December 2023 12: 48
            The turbojet engine starts, but operates with low efficiency. Input compression ratio too low


            The helicopter pilots look at you in surprise.

            the outlet flow rate is too high.


            And what? If the main thing is the transmitted impulse.

            1. +2
              31 December 2023 13: 13
              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              The helicopter pilots look at you in surprise.

              Still would. I don’t remember any helicopters with turbojet engines.

              Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
              And what? If the main thing is the transmitted impulse.

              Due to increased fuel consumption and reduced efficiency.
              1. -3
                31 December 2023 13: 57
                Still would. I don’t remember any helicopters with turbojet engines.


                Maybe because you don’t know what a turbojet engine is? Then let me explain, this is a turbojet engine, which also includes such a variety as a turbojet engine, turboshaft engines with and without a free turbine.


                Due to increased fuel consumption and reduced efficiency.


                I don’t even know how to bring to your consciousness the fact that this is why a turbojet engine was created, that it does not depend on the speed of the oncoming flow, since air compression occurs in the compressor. Well, I don’t need to read a course on jet engine theory to you. lol
                1. +3
                  31 December 2023 14: 34
                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  Maybe because you don’t know what a turbojet engine is? Then let me explain, this is a turbojet engine, which also includes such a variety as a turbojet engine, turboshaft engines with and without a free turbine.

                  We seemed to be discussing physics. But if you prefer terminological disputes, then you are wrong. Turboshaft and turbojet engines are different families of the gas turbine engine class. And their physics is very different.

                  Even double-circuit turbojet engines (turbojet engines) have very different physics compared to single-circuit turbojet engines (which we discussed in the context of this article). The second circuit was introduced precisely to increase efficiency. And the higher the bypass ratio, the higher the efficiency at subsonic speeds.

                  If all these types of gas turbine engines had the same physics, then helicopters would fly like this - on vertically mounted single-circuit turbojet engines. Cheap and cheerful.

                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  This is why a turbojet engine was created, that it does not depend on the speed of the oncoming flow, since air compression occurs in the compressor

                  You have very strange ideas about the motives for creating a turbojet engine. The compressor is needed because at subsonic speeds, compression by the oncoming flow is not enough. The compressor is forced to take away some of the energy of the expanding gases, reducing the efficiency of the engine.

                  Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                  Well, I don’t need to read a course on jet engine theory to you.

                  Read it, why not.
                  1. -3
                    3 January 2024 12: 48

                    We seemed to be discussing physics. But if you prefer terminological disputes, then you are wrong. Turboshaft and turbojet engines are different families of the gas turbine engine class. And their physics is very different.

                    Even double-circuit turbojet engines (turbojet engines) have very different physics compared to single-circuit turbojet engines (which we discussed in the context of this article). The second circuit was introduced precisely to increase efficiency. And the higher the bypass ratio, the higher the efficiency at subsonic speeds.

                    If all these types of gas turbine engines had the same physics, then helicopters would fly like this - on vertically mounted single-circuit turbojet engines. Cheap and cheerful.


                    Here it is, top var in all its glory. A schoolboy argues with a pro without having the slightest idea of ​​the essence of the issue, while other schoolchildren support their own and minus the pros, relying solely on taste. lol
                    So, I’ll explain it for all the stubborn ignoramuses.
                    1. Turbojet engine is the general name for all jet engines that use an axial, centrifugal, or mixed compressor to compress air and supply it to the combustion chamber, driven by a turbine located on the same shaft.
                    Now it is customary to call all this, a compressor, a combustion chamber, a compressor turbine, a gas generator. And any of the engines, regardless of the type, just turbojet engine, gas turbine engine, turbofan engine, DTRD, DTRDF, turbojet engine, these are all varieties of the turbojet engine family (the name and gas turbine engine are acceptable). Because they are based on the same gas generator.
                    For example, the D-136 TVD, which on the Mi-26 helicopter is built on the basis of the D-36 DTRD using the same gas generator.
                    2. The physics of the processes is the same everywhere:
                    - adiabatic compression
                    - isobaric (at constant pressure) heat supply
                    - adiabatic expansion
                    - isobaric heat removal (already outside the engine in the external environment)

                    You have very strange ideas about the motives for creating a turbojet engine. The compressor is needed because at subsonic speeds, compression by the oncoming flow is not enough. The compressor is forced to take away some of the energy of the expanding gases, reducing the efficiency of the engine.


                    What do you consume to compose such heresy? Without a compressor, a turbojet engine will not work at all.


                    Read it, why not.


                    Tutoring costs money.
                    1. +3
                      3 January 2024 16: 37
                      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
                      So, I’ll explain it for all the stubborn ignoramuses.
                      1. And any of the engines, regardless of the type, just turbojet engine, gas turbine engine, turbofan engine, DTRD, DTRDF, turbojet engine, these are all varieties of the turbojet engine family (the name and gas turbine engine are acceptable).

                      Among all the boorish nonsense that you are spouting here, it is this terminological nonsense that is simply refuted. Find and read GOST 23851-79.

                      Regarding the rest, I no longer want to communicate with you. Please excuse me.
                      1. -3
                        3 January 2024 17: 32
                        Among all the boorish nonsense that you are spouting here, it is this terminological nonsense that is simply refuted. Find and read GOST 23851-79.

                        Regarding the rest, I no longer want to communicate with you. Please excuse me.


                        Firstly, I didn’t try to be your interlocutor.
                        Secondly, when it comes to nonsense, you are the master; the search for different physics alone is worth it. And justifying the need for a compressor based on flight speed is a joke.
                        Your drain has been counted.
  8. +7
    29 December 2023 10: 27
    1. "55-mm R4M missiles..."...which laid the foundation for the "family" of Soviet S-5s!
    2. “Burevestnik attack aircraft”... There is a story that Hitler insisted that the production “emphasis” be placed precisely on the production of the Me-262 “Burevestnik” light bombers! And this fact greatly slowed down the production of the Me-262 fighters! And because Germany lost the war (statements of German generals) crying !
    3. I once read that the Germans were considering creating a radio-controlled projectile aircraft based on the Me-262 to destroy the Anglo-Saxon bomber armadas!
    4. I once mentioned in a comment on VO that there were Me-262s with liquid propellant engines! One of the forum members demanded proof from me... Alas! Again, I couldn’t find any information about this on the internet; and the “primary” information disappeared during a “computer accident”! I believe that I have now been “rehabilitated” by the author of the article!
    1. +5
      29 December 2023 14: 14
      I once mentioned in a comment on VO that there were Me-262s with liquid propellant engines! One of the forum members demanded proof from me... Alas! Again, I couldn’t find any information about this on the internet.

      “Information” about this is beyond the roof, even in English-language Wikipedia and Russian-language aviadejavu (https://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft20715.htm) You need to look for Me 262C. The most interesting variant is the Me 262C-2b (Heimatschützer II). It was powered by BMW 003R engines - a combination of a turbojet BMW 003A and a rocket-propelled BMW 109-718. On other variants, liquid-propellant rocket engines were installed under the fuselage in addition to turbojet engines as boosters.
      The photo shows the BMW 003R and Me 262C-2b engine during testing.
      1. +3
        29 December 2023 19: 39
        I am very grateful to you for bringing here the information I once lost! It was a long time ago (more than one year has passed!) and I don’t really remember why I didn’t find the information again (my database on my computer crashed then...)! But I still want to say that I have noticed more than once that the information that I found on the Internet 3-5 years ago is now impossible to find or is difficult to find!
  9. +6
    29 December 2023 10: 31
    After studying these aircraft, they were deemed not worth copying. In the USSR in 1942–1943. The BI-1 fighter, equipped with a D1-A-1100 liquid-propellant rocket engine with a thrust of 1 kgf, running on nitric acid and kerosene, had already been tested, and all the main disadvantages of such an interceptor were known.

    Here the author is a little mistaken. Not only the Me 163 came to the USSR, but also its next variant - the Me 263 (first photo). So it was considered quite worthy of copying, and the Design Bureau of A.I. Mikoyan and M.I. Gurevich, using materials and developments on the German Me-263 fighter, created the experimental fighter I-270 (second photo).
    1. +4
      29 December 2023 10: 41
      The USSR also received developments on the German experimental supersonic rocket plane DFS-346 "Siebel". They served as the basis for the development of the La 162 rocket-powered fighter and the 486 interceptor fighter. True, these projects did not advance beyond mock-ups, however, as we see, the copying of German aircraft with liquid-propellant engines was quite thorough.
  10. +4
    29 December 2023 11: 33
    At least one Me 262 was tested at the Air Force Research Institute.

    1. The captured Messerschmitt Me-262 aircraft with two gas turbine jet engines is a mature jet aircraft and, as its tests at the State Research Institute of the Red Army Air Force have shown, it has a great advantage in maximum horizontal speed over modern and foreign fighters with VMG and has a satisfactory rate of climb and flight range.
    The poor take-off properties of aircraft with gas turbine jet engines require large runways, up to 3 km long, or the use of special take-off accelerators (powder or liquid rockets).
    © Act of the Air Force Research Institute based on the results of state tests

    In addition to the engines, there was another fly in the ointment: during tests it was found that at high speeds the car was pulled into a dive.
    Speed, as P.M. later described. Stefanovsky’s event of that day, according to Kochetkov, quickly increased, reaching a maximum of 870 km/h. Due to the shift of the aerodynamic center of pressure back, the plane was constantly “hovering on the stick” - trying to dive into a dive. It was impossible for the pilot to hold the machine in a horizontal position with one hand. Kochetkov began to act with two. The diving trend continued to increase. Goosebumps crawled all over my body. Eyes quickly moved from the instrument panel to the ever-decreasing distance between the base of the control stick and the pilot’s seat. This is how we checked the remaining power reserve of the rudders. The pulling force on the handle already exceeded 24 kilograms. It is urgent to use a stabilizer and reduce them on the steering wheel. But, alas! The stabilizer did not move. The power reserve of the handle is completely exhausted. The only salvation is to immediately reduce the speed.
    Holding the stick with colossal tension with his right hand, the pilot moves his left hand to the engine control sectors and reduces the speed. This is where the Russian power supply came in handy, which German pilots apparently lacked in such cases! Or maybe not only strength, but also endurance? The radio transmitter buttons of the radio station were located on one of the engine sectors. In a panic, pulling the plane out of a dive with both hands, the Krauts could not broadcast their troubles.
    However, why did the stabilizer control fail? The answer to this question has also been found. The rapid change from positive to negative temperature with increased air humidity that day contributed to the formation of an ice crust on the contacts of the stabilizer electric switch (drive)
  11. +4
    29 December 2023 12: 12
    Thank you very much Sergey, very interesting and Happy New Year.
    1. +4
      29 December 2023 12: 24
      Andrey, greetings! Haven't talked for a while...
      Thank you for your congratulations! In turn, Olya and I congratulate you on the upcoming New Year! Health and peace to you and your loved ones!
      1. +4
        29 December 2023 12: 39
        Thank you very much, health and peace to you too.
  12. -3
    29 December 2023 12: 24
    Pilots who mastered the Me 262 noted that this fighter was easier to fly than the piston-powered Bf 109. At the same time, the jet aircraft had a number of features that needed to be taken into account.....


    ....Taking into account the fact that the jet aircraft had poor horizontal maneuverability, battles on turns and low-altitude flights were contraindicated for it. Turbojet engines, with a designated service life of 25 hours, often failed earlier, and landing the Me 262 with one working turbojet engine was very dangerous. If the established maximum flight speed was exceeded, there was a risk of the aircraft being pulled into a dive or the airframe being destroyed.

    And how did it all fit together?
    1. +5
      29 December 2023 12: 33
      Quote: Grossvater
      And how did it all fit together?

      How is ease of control (especially on landing) combined with horizontal maneuverability? It is no secret that the same I-16 was much more maneuverable in turns than, say, the La-5, but at the same time it required high qualifications from the pilot. As for the reliability and service life of engines, how is this related to ease of control?
      When used correctly, even taking into account operational problems, the Me 262 was a very powerful interceptor for its time.
      1. +3
        30 December 2023 12: 59
        Quote: Bongo
        How is ease of control (especially on landing) combined with horizontal maneuverability?

        Indeed, how. Horizontal maneuverability is mainly determined by the specific wing load. For the I-16 it is about 130 kg/sq.m, for the La-5 - about 180. And for the Me-262 - 290. Ease of control during landing is largely determined by the landing speed, which also greatly depends on the load on the wing.
      2. 0
        31 December 2023 14: 07
        How is ease of control (especially on landing) combined with horizontal maneuverability?

        It doesn't fit at all. There is no such thing as ease of control. There is stability and controllability, as well as the required load on the controls, if it is done according to a reversible scheme and without the use of boosters.
  13. +1
    29 December 2023 12: 27
    In 1946, based on the Me 262, the Sukhoi Design Bureau created the Su-9 fighter.

    Well, how long can you repeat this nonsense? Messer and Su-9 (the first with this name), two completely different aircraft!
    1. Alf
      +2
      29 December 2023 19: 27
      Quote: Grossvater
      In 1946, based on the Me 262, the Sukhoi Design Bureau created the Su-9 fighter.

      Well, how long can you repeat this nonsense? Messer and Su-9 (the first with this name), two completely different aircraft!

      And why was Alexey downvoted? The wings are different, especially in sweep, the horizontal-vertical tail surfaces are different, the cross-section of the fuselages is different. The only thing in common is the engines and their location.
      1. +2
        31 December 2023 13: 04
        Quote: Alf
        The wings are different, especially in sweep,

        About the sweep of the wings! There was also a Me-262 project with swept wings... approximately like the Su-9!
    2. +1
      30 December 2023 17: 21
      Quote: Grossvater
      Well, how long can you repeat this nonsense? Messer and Su-9 (the first with this name), two completely different aircraft!

      I agree - 100%. But it is also worth recognizing that Pavel Sukhoi was guided by the results of the Lastochka test when creating the first Su-9.
      And so the Yak-25 can be considered a “Copy” of the “Swallow”)))
  14. -4
    29 December 2023 12: 31
    The 108th gun was completely incompatible with either the 163rd or the 262nd. This is a junkyard gun. Short-barreled, with an indecently low initial speed. The 103rd would be more appropriate. Especially on the 163rd.
  15. -1
    29 December 2023 12: 40
    Quote: Bongo
    How is ease of control (especially on landing) combined with horizontal maneuverability?

    What does horizontal maneuverability have to do with it? If on an airplane, changing the engine operating mode becomes a separate and very complex procedure, if if you barely keep track of the speed you can fall into an uncontrolled dive, then can such an airplane really be called easy to fly?
    1. +2
      29 December 2023 12: 59
      What is the relationship between speed limit and aircraft controllability? request
      1. +3
        29 December 2023 16: 10
        Quote: Tucan
        What is the relationship between speed limit and aircraft controllability?

        Due to the aerodynamics of the wing, at speeds close to the speed of sound, the plane could completely lose control. And if now this phenomenon is well studied by engineers, then in those days no one had ever encountered anything like this, because planes flew at a speed slightly exceeding the speed of a turtle. And since they didn’t yet know how to deal with this, there were speed limits for pilots...
  16. +3
    29 December 2023 13: 16
    The Comet was created as a cheap interceptor. It is essentially a glider with a rocket booster. Everything on this plane is designed for one attack. Taking off from a trolley and landing on a ski - there is no need to carry the extra weight of the landing gear, and for a glider landing, even a ski is enough. The task of the jet engine is to quickly gain altitude and reach the line of using weapons. Reserving the frontal projection increases the chances of a non-maneuverable forward attack. The powerful weapon delivers a single killing salvo. The armored back gives hope for a safe exit from the attack. The glider makes it possible to reach the airfield without fuel. In general, a viable concept, but it would be more suitable for the Japanese with their ''sacred wind''

    Swallow is closer to the classical concept. But it is expensive and technologically difficult for a broken-down economy.

    Salamander.. what about Salamander? Ersatz is just that: ersatz. It's hard to make candy from scrap materials.
  17. +1
    29 December 2023 13: 52
    Quote: Tucan
    What is the relationship between speed limit and aircraft controllability? request

    Well... It depends on what is considered an “easy-to-control airplane.” In my understanding, an easily controlled aircraft is one that does not require excessive attention to control. In general, the flight itself is not an end in itself, and the pilot has a lot of other concerns other than keeping an eye on the speed indicator. A normal, easily controllable aircraft should not fall into dangerous conditions at all. After all, a pilot flies for some reason, in the case of a combat aircraft, to carry out a combat mission, and the less the features of the aircraft distract from this, the better.
    However, let's turn to the classics. Here is what Hero of the Soviet Union, test pilot Mark Lazarevich Gallai writes about this:
    “An airplane should not require from the person operating it the same attention and physical training as, say, the work of a circus acrobat or juggler. And the point here is not only in the comparative “mass” of the flying profession in comparison with the circus, but, first of all, in the fact that For a pilot, piloting an airplane is not an end in itself.
    The greater part of his attention must be freed up for the conscious performance of other functions for which the flight is essentially undertaken."
  18. 0
    29 December 2023 13: 53
    Quote: Tucan
    What is the relationship between speed limit and aircraft controllability? request

    What do you call an easily controlled airplane?
  19. +1
    29 December 2023 16: 40
    And what kind of enemy jet fighter was shot down by Kozhedub?
    1. +6
      29 December 2023 19: 16
      And what kind of enemy jet fighter was shot down by Kozhedub?

      According to the generally accepted version, which also appears in Allied Jet Killers of World War 2, on February 19, 1945, Kozhedub, together with Titarenko, shot down a Me262 A-1a from 1./KG(J) 54, piloted by Kurt Lange, in the Frankfurt area.
      But the version is not yet indisputable. German sources have information that pilot Kurt Lange in his Me262 A-1a from 1./KG(J) 54 died while performing a training flight on February 15 in the Scheftersheim area.
    2. Alf
      +3
      29 December 2023 19: 30
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      And what kind of enemy jet fighter was shot down by Kozhedub?

      Like 262nd.
      P.S. The adventures of Mecklenburg in how many books?
      1. +4
        29 December 2023 19: 47
        Quote: Alf
        P.S. The adventures of Mecklenburg in how many books?

        There are eight books in total, but in one, he is not the main character)
        https://author.today/work/series/3847
        1. Alf
          +2
          29 December 2023 19: 48
          Quote: Senior Sailor
          Quote: Alf
          P.S. The adventures of Mecklenburg in how many books?

          There are eight books in total, but in one, he is not the main character)
          https://author.today/work/series/3847

          Thank you, I can't get my hands on them.
        2. +3
          29 December 2023 23: 07
          Thanks for the tip, I started reading Mecklenburg.
  20. +2
    29 December 2023 17: 38
    As usual, thank you very much to the respected author for the article!
  21. +3
    29 December 2023 18: 33
    Quote: Grossvater
    Quote: Tucan
    What is the relationship between speed limit and aircraft controllability? request

    What do you call an easily controlled airplane?


    The question is not on the merits of the article, but since it arose, it undoubtedly requires an explanation. The difference between agility and controllability is dialectical and, in principle, understood on an intuitive level. Specifically, in the presentation of aerodynamics, they sound like this: “Maneuverability is the ability of an Aircraft (AV) to change the velocity vector and its direction in a certain time,” and “Controllability is the ability of an Aircraft (AV) to respond to commands entered by the pilot when acting on the Control Levers Department (KRU)". At the same time, the norms of effort and expenditure of switchgear are purely physiological and have their own strictly substantiated criteria, for example the Cooper-Harper criterion. From which it follows that a maneuverable aircraft with incorrect switchgear control laws will be more difficult to control than a less maneuverable aircraft with correct switchgear control laws. Those. specifically for the article, the cost and effort norms of the Me-262 switchgear were more correct than those of the Bf-109 (although here you need to look at the modification), although all the piston messers were controlled very poorly at high speed (ice cream on a stick). An easily controllable aircraft, from the point of view of aerodynamic science, is an aircraft that maintains a given flight mode (speed and load) and at the same time allows you to quickly and accurately change it.
  22. +1
    29 December 2023 18: 45
    In 1946, based on the Me 262, the Sukhoi Design Bureau created the Su-9 fighter.
    Not entirely true. The Su-9 only vaguely resembled the Me-262 in appearance. Structurally, it was completely different. Pavel Sukhoi did not simply copy this plane... He simply could not do otherwise
    1. Alf
      0
      29 December 2023 19: 33
      Quote: svp67
      In 1946, based on the Me 262, the Sukhoi Design Bureau created the Su-9 fighter.
      Not entirely true. The Su-9 only vaguely resembled the Me-262 in appearance. Structurally, it was completely different. Pavel Sukhoi did not simply copy this plane... He simply could not do otherwise

      You shouldn't have said that. The respected Grossvater said this above, so three minutes were noted.
      1. 0
        30 December 2023 17: 17
        Quote: Alf
        You shouldn't have said that

        I say what I know and think and I don’t want to somehow adapt to the “+”...
  23. +4
    30 December 2023 10: 18
    What an acceleration of scientific and technological progress the Germans have made. How many of their developments have gone into use on both sides of the Atlantic. If that war had been fought using the same methods as now, we would all speak German.
    1. -3
      31 December 2023 06: 43
      Quote: lis-ik
      What an acceleration the Germans made in scientific and technological progress.

      A very controversial statement... Apart from missiles, there is probably nothing in which the “gloomy genius” has significantly advanced from “developments on both sides of the Atlantic”...
  24. 0
    14 January 2024 14: 04
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    So, don’t muddy the waters in a historically stable environment!

    That's what we're talking about. Jet and rocket engines are different engines. But not all smart people know this.
  25. 0
    18 January 2024 21: 45
    In 1946, based on the Me 262, the Sukhoi Design Bureau created the Su-9 fighter. In the only prototypes built These vehicles were equipped with captured German Jumo-004B engines.

    How to translate this into Russian?!
  26. -1
    April 20 2024 22: 16
    In 1946, based on the Me 262, the Sukhoi Design Bureau created the Su-9 fighter.

    It's a delusion . The Su-9 was based on the He-280M. He received all the documentation.
  27. 0
    April 20 2024 22: 17
    Quote from Ponimatel
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    So, don’t muddy the waters in a historically stable environment!

    That's what we're talking about. Jet and rocket engines are different engines. But not all smart people know this.

    Rocket is always reactive, reactive is not always rocket.