The World's First Fighter Jet Engine? - The Junkers Jumo 004

[@AgentJayZ]

At 2:21, that is footage I took of a J79 turbojet in afterburner in the S&S Turbines test cell in Fort St. John, BC. For many more jet engine test runs and other videos, they are posted on my channel. Respectfully, if this comment is removed, we may have a copyright issue, sir.

[@flightdojo]

I’ll pin this to the top and add proper credits for you in the description. My apologies.

[@flightdojo]

Description updated.

[@peterbustin2683]

I love both channels so I knew straight away upon watching. I find this a bit difficult, but I hope this can be sorted out swiftly and positively. Dont go and make some greedy lawyer rich.

[@Asgar1205]

It's hard for me to put into words how much i hate the J79-17A. I never liked working on it xD

[@scabbydoggydoo3460]

@@peterbustin2683 Well said sir , I could'nt agree more ! I believe it was the late great George Harrison who wrote a song called ' Sue me, sue you blues ' ...." bring your lawyer n' I'll bring mine, get together, we can have a bad time ! "

[@tiller4262]

Huge fan of the kit plane idea. It would be perfect, I could vicariously build through you until im in a place to build one myself.

[@peteorengo5888]

Great video! I consider this engine to be the precursor to all modern jet engines because it uses an axial compressor. While not technically the first jet engine, it is the design that withstood the test of time.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

It is nonetheless the first _mass production_ jet engine and the predecessor of all modern jet engines. The centrifugal jet was an evolutionary dead-end concept

[@Beemer917]

I was a machinist for 35 years. For a big part of that I had my own shop and was doing my own estimates for work. I like the idea of building the sc5 I think it would be a great project and it would be fun to watch but did I hear you say it would take 400 hours to build? My first estimate, just on eyeballing, it would be much higher. Not trying to put a damper on your plans.

[@mithrandir1313]

SE 5 is beautiful classic WW1 biplane!!

[@oldretireddude]

I was attending an engine familiarization course at my company on a day when Hans von Ohain was visiting. The president of the company asked Mr von Ohain to speak to the class and I was privileged to speak personally and shake hands with Mr von Ohain in a reception line after the class was over.

[@victorfergn]

Are you 100% sure he wasn't involved in war crimes like von Braun?

[@leebonsey7873]

Science museum in London has a hall of flight, which has an impressive amount of aero engines . Starting from the first powered flight right up to an Olympus from Concord. , Including the Jumo ,BMW and Whittle's jet engines. And the smell is just as you would expect👍

[@mickyday2008]

Concorde

[@andrewsmart2949]

the olympus is a j79

[@isstuff]

The harrier cutaway is so clear as to how it works. Loved it.

[@abbush2921]

@@andrewsmart2949 Olympus is Olympus a Rolls-Royce engine , the J79 is a GE engine absolutely no relation .

[@soultraveller5027]

@@andrewsmart2949 Actually No you bellend, it's a Rolls Royce /SNECMA Olympus 593 Anglo-French turbojet with reheat, derived from the Bristol Siddeley Olympus 22R engine, which was originally designed for british BAC TSR-2 project a Cold war strike and reconnaissance aircraft in the 1960s , which got cancelled. As for the american J79 jet engine, try a little more to ''research'' and know what you're facking talking about you muppet. The british never acquired any licence to build this foreign engine, it just so happened britain was quite capable of producing its own jet engines namely Rolls Royce currently, latter Bristol Siddeley engines for the (Harrier Jump Jet ) and many others matey

[@jdawg1712]

Three in-depth videos at a high level of quality in 10 days!? That’s extremely impressive.

[@cereal7602]

I was looking at those kits too, far too worried I'd mess it up though during the build process!

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

A good kit is just like ikea though. But a bit of self confidence is still required for sure

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

What is the website? Only seem to be able to find scale models.

[@EllDub]

@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Airdrome Aeroplanes is the producer of the se5a in question amongst others.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

@@EllDub thank you very much.

[@southronjr1570]

Here in the US, my understanding is that you have to have the FAA inspectors come in and verify the quality and correct assembly.

[@peters972]

That part about the harmonics and getting violinists to listen for resonance was very interesting, I didn’t know that! Thank you.

[@etwas013]

A prime example fo thinking out of the box.

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

What engine do those SE5a replicas use? Sounds a very interesting project to have.

[@flightdojo]

It’s up to you to decide. A lot of guys use vw engines. I’d like to use a lycoming.

[@rawnukles]

@@flightdojo I'll have one with two Jumo 004 please.

[@willallen7757]

@@rawnukles they only run for like an hour.

[@Schnittertm1]

@@willallen7757 Only if you produce them in the way they had to produce them. Had they still had access to everything to build the more heat resistant metal alloys for the engine, they would have run much longer.

[@julianneale6128]

I was thinking the same thing. I like the thought of an automotive conversion with a PSRU to enable it to throw a scale propeller.

[@kiwidiesel]

wow I never realised Germany was so early with its jet engines, Pre war even.

[@TheBioniXman]

Yep, just like Britain. First jet engine test 1929.

[@julianneale6128]

The very first jet engine to ever run on its own was a an engine by Whittle.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Germany invented the jet engine.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@TheBioniXman That is completely false

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@julianneale6128 The first successful demonstration of a jet aircraft engine was August 27th 1939 in Rostock Germany. Whittle was the FOURTH person to successfully demonstrate a jet engine, 2 years later.

[@sangomasmith]

This video uncritically regurgitates a lot of historical myths about the 262. Firstly; the 262 was produced about as quickly as was realistically possible. Military history visualized has a video about the "Hitler delayed the 262" myth that goes through it all in detail. Secondly; the idea that all production should have been shifted to jet aircraft implies that the choice was between hordes of obsolescent fighters and hordes of world-beating, untouchable jet aircraft. It wasn't. The choice was between cranking out enough upgraded, production-streamlined 109s and 190s to maybe match 2/3 of allied fighter aircraft production, and having a slightly larger fleet of superlative but deeply unreliable jets. Speer's drive for production rationalisation is another heavily mythologized aspect of WW2, but it clearly understood this issue and put resources into making sure that allied aircraft weren't running around an empty German sky. In any case, the Luftwaffe enjoyed by far the lion's share of Nazi state resources during the latter half of WW2, of which most went into the V2 (a whole other topic all by itself) and then the Me-262. Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" details all of this fairly elegantly. Turning to the Jumo itself; I would be open to a deeper analysis by someone who knows something about jet engine design, but my understanding is that the Jumo was a bit of a dog. The 30 hour lifetime was, for instance, purely aspirational and in reality was more like 30 minutes. The engine was deeply prone to flameout and compressor stall, and could be destroyed by rough handling of the throttle (something which was only partly addressed as the war went on). Developmentally, the Jumo turned out to be something of a dead end - a lot of it's more unique features (the burner can design and counter-rotating stators) were never used in other jets, and the engine families which can be traced directly to its lineage are minimal. I've heard that the French developed the Atar from it, but don't know the full story. In the end, the Jumo was neither a good engine nor a bad one. It was simply a very early example of a form that would be refined considerably over later years.

[@steffenrosmus9177]

Fun is, a froend of my fahter flew one pf the Me 262 with the same jet engines for over 12 hrs ( longest single fligh5t 45 min) between service/replacement.

[@UAuaUAuaUA]

With your 30 minutes claim you just invented another fairy tale. Starting on 10 Sep 1944, many recon missions were flown with Ar 234 over England as far as London, and as all the engines always worked all the time, none was shot down. They started usually from Rheine airport and had to fly for several hours each time. The photos taken were used to identify and adjust for V1 and V2 targets. The last such mission took place in April 1945. The well known pilot Erich Sommer flew some 50 wartime missions with his Ar 234. Among them was one over the Normandy beachheads which gave the Germans a good overview of the true size of that operation. And somehow he did all of that with what you call a "30 minute engine". He even survived the war, moved to Australia, told the story and died there in 2005. No need to invent fairy tales, but there's a need to read books.

[@sangomasmith]

@@UAuaUAuaUA Fair enough, I should elaborate a bit. First, however, I am happy that we agree on the majority of the myths surrounding what is still a beautiful and interesting aircraft. As far as I have been able to ascertain (the 262, despite being one of the most talked-about aircraft of WW2, is very difficult to pin down in terms of operational data using online sources), something like 30% of all 262 losses were caused by a combination of engine issues, non-combat losses with cause unknown (ie: the pilot took the aircraft out for a non-combat flight and just never came back) and combat losses with cause unknown (ie: the pilot went off on a sortie, never returned and was not reported as having been shot down). Each factor contributed about the same amount. Since the average operational flight was substantially less than an hour, this means that at least 10% of aircraft were having their engines fail in less than an hour, and perhaps as many as 30%. I'd say that that represents a realistic operational lifetime of substantially less than the rated 25-30 hours. Again, however, you are right to point out that the engine, if a well-made example (remember that most were made by slave labour) and carefully handled, could last it's full lifespan. The Soviets made some post-war as the RD-10, and it reportedly had a lifetime between full overhaul of 30-40 hours. By contrast, the Rolls-Royce Derwent (which is of similar vintage) had an operational lifetime of 900 hours subject to an inspection of the hot end components at 450 hours.

[@Prometheus19853]

Pretty much everything you said about the engine is wrong. The engine met the 30 hour service life, and it was only this short due to the lack of nickel necessary for high-temperature alloys. Instead, the 004 used a compressor-bleed cooling system on mild steel components, which dropped the engine from something like 250 hours to 30 hours, but removed the need for nickel entirely. Additionally, the engine flameout problems were directly linked to the throttle issues, which were eventually solved by the integration of a throttle limiter. From what information can be found on it, it essentially limited the speed at which you could actuate the throttle to prevent that exact issue. That said, there is no evidence, anywhere, by anyone, of the throttle causing the engine to be destroyed.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

THE Jumo 004b Orkan engines met or exceeded the RLMs 100 hour PFTR standards for acceptance into Luftwaffe service. The U.S. Army tested the Me-262's as part of Operation Lusty and confirmed TBOs in the 50 to 60 hour range EXCELLENT BY WW2 standards.

[@Asgar1205]

One reason for the delay in jet engine development was also due to the RLMs boosted confidence in the Bf 109 after the unexpected success during aerial campaigns over Poland, France and Norway. Btw. the "Hitler insisted the 262 had to be converted to a bomber" is a stupid Internet myth that has persistet for years. MHV has a great video about that topic. If you don't mind i can update the comment with the link.

[@cfrincon]

IDK your sources but both Speer and Galland are on the record that Hitler was bent on the idea of using the 262 as a "Blitz Bomber" kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWqWY2aLjZ2SkM0

[@jimdavison4077]

There are a lot of myths when it comes to Germany during WW2. After the complete failure of the Junkers 78 in the battle of Britain Hitler and the Luftwaffe powers ordered all fighters be able to carry bombs in order to help hit ground targets. Every fighter there after had the secondary bombing capabilities as did US and British fighters. Seems people either forget that or ignore it. What Germany lacked from mid 1940 on was a bomber force capable of hitting designated targets. Even US and RAF heavies had trouble hitting specific targets, pinpoint bombing was left to light to medium bombers of both forces.

[@CaptainVasiliArkhipov]

It did make it's way into print decades before the internet, along with other details not always fully presented. Even old books have their skewed presentations of history. I'm not sure the internet is any worse at distortions that the uneditable printed book. Lots of book burnings throughout history, I'd even heard Hitler's Nazis were simply burning pornography and communist propaganda, pick and choose as we will which stories to believe is often the most accurate...like not being right but still being righteous as Saul

[@jimdavison4077]

@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov " I'm not sure the internet is any worse at distortions that the uneditable printed book. " Are you kidding? The internet is a joke, we have several videos on war birds being made based solely off other internet videos that were never properly fact checked. Take the HO 229 as a prime example. There are several videos claiming it was a bomber or other saying it was a fighter and that the one at the Smithsonian was flown on video. All factually not true. David M wrote a book on them post war and interviewed the Hortens. One was very keen on moving to the US and getting a job with one of the many aircraft companies. So he severely embellished the work they did on the 229 and it's production. The only version the Hortens designed and built was the V1 glider. Then the Gotha team was brought in because the Hortens were bike builders and a gliders, they never designed and built any powered aircraft. The V2 was a joint effort with Gotha doing the heavy lifting. The Hortens then left the 229 project and the Gotha team designed and built the V3 all on their own with no weapons at all. It was a developmental designed to prove the concept. Claims it was tested in a mock dogfight are laughable given the fact the 262 was forbidden to dogfight completely. Just and example of how one incorrect book has spawned several videos on the internet. Books could be cross referenced easier and the main thing is publishers use to have teams factchecking things unless you pretty much self published. The internet is a free for all.

[@stscc01]

Thanks for commenting on that stupid myth that can be found even in otherwise competent literature, not only the internet...

[@smalcolmbrown]

Thanks Interesting. I hope that you also do the BMW 003. Just one small point. The Arado 234 at 18:00 is powered by BMW 003 engines NOT Jumo 004 engines. You can tell by looking at the exhaust outlet. It has the cylinder with a vertical fin top and bottom rather than the so called Onion of the 004.

[@lazarus2691]

I think you're just seeing video artifacts. I found an extended version of that footage here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6aplZSDjqhrarc Assuming it's the same aircraft in all shots, then at around the 40 second mark you get a much clearer look at the engine exhaust - I don't see any fins. I've also never heard of an Arado B variant being fitted with 003s, only the V6 and V8 prototypes and the C models - all of which had four engine rather than two.

[@smalcolmbrown]

@@lazarus2691 Yes that is much clearer

[@leneanderthalien]

The BMW 003 history not stops in 1945: the french compagny SNECMA did hire the complete BMW jet engine staff, inclusive they chief Dr ing. Hermann Östrich to work togeter with french engineers for the first french turbo jet (first french prototype Rateau SRa -1 was planed in 1939, but stopped from the war), based on the design from the BMW 003 but heawely improved and in 1953 the objective was completed and the ATAR 101D3 was launch in serie for the Dassault Mystere II (official entered in operational service in 1955).The ultimate ATAR turbo jet (9K50) was use on Dassault Mirage F1...

[@FiveCentsPlease]

@@leneanderthalien Post-war French use and adaptation of the German engines is interesting and I don't think it has been documented very well. The French kept Jumo 213 piston engines in operation until the late 1950s or early 1960s, at least on their ocean patrol aircraft.

[@MichaelAMVM]

The Me 262 wasn't the first jet to fly. The Heinkel He 178 was the first in August 27, 1939. The fighter bomber role had nothing to do with it being delayed. Control surface and engine issues was the reason it was delayed. In fact these issues were never fixed leading to allied test pilots losing their lives flying it.

[@jetpilot2626]

Thanks for clearing up the misconception of the Jumo/262 being the first. He-178 then of course the He-280 then the 262.

[@simonm1447]

To be more accurate the HE 178 was the first German jet, but since it wasn't armed but just a test bed the ME 262 was the first German fighter jet

[@jetpilot2626]

@@simonm1447 I will grant you that, to a degree, what was the He280? It was a specific built fighter, although dumped for political reasons. The original V did not use a Jumo.

[@simonm1447]

@@jetpilot2626 if it was dumped it wasn't a existing aircraft. You can't count aircraft which have never flown

[@hurri7720]

He did speak about a fighter jet. And it was indeed built i big numbers too (1430). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

[@leokimvideo]

Germany were so far ahead in future thinking in WW2, the Me262 is a pure example of it.

[@ATomRileyA]

Great video, would love to see more about how jet engines became more efficient and powerful and the engineering that made it possible from those early engines till now. Also would be great to see you build that plane i would certainly enjoy it. Keep up the great work your are doing on your channel :)

[@keithcarpenter5254]

Go check out agentjayz, pinned commenter. Best jet engine channel.

[@Supersean0001]

Very informative video! On the kitplane idea, you're right; it is a big commitment. That 400 hour build time estimate is probably optimistic, especially if you're wanting to do a really nice, quality job of it. And a LOT more kits are started than are actually finished (but I'd be extremely hesitant to buy a partially completed kit . . .). But I went ahead and subscribed . . . got a long way to go to get to 100k subscribers.

[@pyro1047]

Great video as always. Only thing I'd contest is the bombs requirement being the reason the 262 was delayed, Military Aviation Historys video sums it up pretty well.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Was going to comment the same.

[@flightdojo]

I added a bit in the clarification section of the description making note of this. Thanks for the help!

[@michaelpielorz9283]

The first Me`s were tail draggersbecause the RLM did not accept the "american invention"tricicle landing gear.so the Me had problems with the exhaust damaging the runway ( those two black trails on runways seen on photos were the first hint of something new beeing developed).and it was not easy to lift the tail wheel at take of. early test pilots had to brake shortly to lift the tailwheel and found it to risky to do.So the design had to be changed wich caused a further delay.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Indeed, that myth is easily debunked, all modern jet fighters are multi role attack aircraft with bombing capability. The P-51 Mustang for example carried a similar bomb load and had a dedicated bomber variant

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@michaelpielorz9283 the first Me-262s were tail draggers because early testing of the aircraft were conducted with a propeller and additional ground clearance was needed.

[@BARelement]

I had a feeling it was a German jet engine didn’t want to risk it

[@jonremmers1828]

I would love to see you building sn aeroplane! But a word of caution: I have been working for years as a motor journalist and have written more technical how-to articles than I can possibly count. My experience is that if you are covering a job in the workshop with a camera for to later do something media with the material - it takes way more time than just doing the job. Its not even the same sport. Its a completely different thing. If that plane takes an advertised 400hrs to build - I would plan for more like 1 200hrs if you intend to cover it for yt. At least if you plan on keeping your excellent level of quality - which I really hope. Your videos on aeroplane engines are my favourite content on youtube all categories. And I hope to see many more of them.

[@thomasleclair7418]

history is history,,,,,,,,,,,I dont like a narrator spilling out word after words at a fast rate...........Ya must live on coffee....................screw this fast analogy of events......ftw...

[@shawns0762]

When the 262 entered service it's top speed was 540 mph. A late war 262 was tested in England and it's top speed was 568 mph. The second generation 262's would have had a 14 degree wing sweep (the same as a Sabre and a Mig-15) and a V tail that would have reduced frontal area considerably. With afterburning engines this would have been outstanding.

[@Hi11is]

The ME 262 had 18.5° sweep. F-86 Saber, MiG-15 had a 35° sweep as did the intended redesign of the Me 262. The V-tail was wind tunnel tested for the HG II version and rejected due to instability. There is no evidence the Germans had working afterburners, Whittle and the US NACA both were working on them in 1944.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@Hi11is The F-86 and the MiG-15 use a German wing design.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@Hi11is The afterburner is a German invention and was tested on the Jumo -004

[@Hi11is]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 How could they test something that was NEVER built? You're delusional.

[@Hi11is]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 The wing of the F-86 uses NACA airfoils. Wing sweep is not wing design.

[@jamesmason7124]

The Horten ho 229 also used this engine and was the first pure wing jet fighter

[@paoloviti6156]

The Junkers Jumo 004B was an extremely advanced turbojet as was the world's first production turbojet engine in operational use, and the first successful axial compressor turbojet engine and the first to seriously install a afterburner, but it was was too late to be produced. Dr Anselm Franz design of the turbojet was both conservative and revolutionary by choosing an axial flow engine with the objective to put in production as soon as possible and make it simple. It must be said that Franz Anselm was faced immediately with chronic shortage of heat resistant alloys, like the BMW 003A so he and his engineers had to find ways to circumvent this issue and managed somehow to have a service life between 10 to 15 hours but if handled by experts even more hours. The great advantage of the Jumo 004B was that it was costing RM10,000 for materials, the Jumo 004 also proved somewhat cheaper than the competing BMW 003A, which was RM12,000, and cheaper than the Junkers 213E piston engine, which was RM35,000. Moreover, the jets used lower-skill labor and needed only 375 hours to complete (including manufacture, assembly, and shipping), compared to 1,400 for the BMW 801 and used diesel oil or standard J-2 synthetic oil extracted from coal. You did a very good job and I agree that many dragged their feet on many levels both by the engine manufacturers and top management of the Luftwaffe. And also the Heinkel turbojets would been a much better option but the problem was that Ernest Heinkel was not popular among the Air Ministry and the Luftwaffe ensured a lot of intriguing and back stabbing. Thanks for sharing this very interesting video and looking forward to see your new videos 👍 👍👍👍

[@UAuaUAuaUA]

Thanks for your contribution as well. After the war, Dr. Anselm Franz did more engine design in the USA. Among others, the engine of the Bell Huey and Chinook helicopters were designed and developed with him as the boss. This shows how he was capable to achieve yet again success in a different nation and under very different circumstances.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@UAuaUAuaUA very true and I Franz Anselm was quite a genius. After the war he left Austria that was shattered and in1951 he was hired to set up a new turbine division at Lycoming otherwise unused plant in Stratford, Connecticut settling on helicopter engines among them designing the T53 would go on to be one of the most popular turboshaft engines in history....

[@jimdavison4077]

How was the Jumo 004b advanced. It was actually much less advanced than the 004A engine but Jumo was told it could not produce any jet engine using the severely restricted alloys needed to build heat resistant components and light strong components. It was much less advanced than the five turbojets that saw production in the UK. Also lets talk about that claim of operational use. Define operational use? Because the term is usually operational squadron use and the RAF Meteor with 616 squadron is actually the first operational jet fighting squadron in the world in July 44. The first Luftwaffe operational Jet squadron was Jg 07 in December 1944 five months after the RAF. The 262 did fly with test command, ( Erprobungskommando 262) in April 44 but it operates various different aircraft to determine if they had any usable qualities. It was never an operational squadron.

[@williamzk9083]

Its a mistake often repeated that the engine had a service life of only 25 hours. It had an MTBO of 25 hours. They were meant to be overhauled up to 4 times. You removed and replaced the engines (which took 2 men 4 hours)and overhauled the engine. A well flown engine could last 60 hours.

[@williamzk9083]

@@jimdavison4077 The handling issues came from primitive engine controls that relied on a centrifugal governor to dose fuel to achieve a certain engine RPM. What is needed is a way to measure air mass flow and trim the fuel flow to avoid over and underdosing fuel. Over dosing can lead to a burn out from over heating or a flame out from the fuel. Under dosing can also lead to a flameout. The "beschleungguns ventil" or "accelerator control valve "that used a barometric capsule to measure air pressure and thereby air flow across the compressor was scheduled to enter service in April 1945. It would have lead to a big improvement in reliability and throttle response. The final piece of the puzzle would have been using the engine thermocouples to not only indicate temperature but regulate it using some electronics. There were sensors in the engine but no electronics yet. The reason electronics is needed is to not only measure the temperature but its rate of rise to dampen any over shoots.

[@dougreid2351]

Subscribed! Suggest that your subscribers/fans/family have the skill & motivation to help with the S E 5 project . . . DOUGout

[@kevatut23]

Oh yeah. Four hundred hours is about twenty six hundred less than your average contemporary design. And at least a thousand less than the faster builds. You will love building this method. Highly satisfying. And the channel members would love it.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

*Quadymodolt... when an ineffectual toll makes a fool of himself.*

[@abbersj2935]

Sir Frank Whittle.. "While writing his thesis he formulated the fundamental concepts that led to the creation of the turbojet engine, taking out a patent on his design in 1930." "However, Frank Whittle was already working on his design in the late 1920s and openly patented the design in 1930, a full seven years before Ohain's design ran". It seems to me that Whittles work predated Ohains by some years. Even more gauling then that nothing was done with it by the UK government for so many years.

[@marthakrumboltz2710]

Nothing was done with it as UK had a pressing issue referred as the blitz. Also ,Whittles patent was established but it was German production that received notice

[@julianneale6128]

It's amazing why people tend to brush these facts to one side. Whittle was way ahead of his time! Its just a shame the British government didn't listen for several years...

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Maxime Guillaume patented the turbojet aircraft engine in 1921 when a 14 year old Frankie Whittle was still wearing short pants... Whittle never built his 1930 patent and did not start actual work on jet engines until he moved to Rugby in 1936.. 2 years after Hans von Ohain and Max Hahnn in began work in Gottingen Germany. Whittle would only be the 4th person to successfully demonstrate a jet aircraft engine.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Whittle made a major career gaff when he was caught plagerizing the work of A.A. Griffith who was the Chief of Engine development and the Royal Aircraft Establishment.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@julianneale6128 Whittle was a much better boaster and self-promoter than an engineer, he was unable to produce a viable design without the help of many British experts that Whittle refused to give credit. The real geniuses of the British jet engine program was led by Adrian Lombard and Stanley Hooker.

[@choppergirl]

I vote that you're clueless. Anyone who dreams of flying, LISTEN UP! Here's the skinny: SE5a replicas are common as dirt. If you really want an SE5a, buy one already built. If you buy an Aerodrome Airplanes Kit, you'll never finish it. Most homebuilt airplanes...90% of them.. never get finished. IN 2023 we have much better ways to fly than building your airplane. For starters, unlike the old days, instead of building the airplane first and learning to fly it... you need to REVERSE that completely... today we have a plethora of cheap sims. LEARN TO FLY FIRST. Yes, you can teach yourself, and no, you don't have to pay for expensive lessons. But unless you have a sim environment, I don't consider you a serious pilot... unless your time was before they existed (i.e.e, you're Erst Udet). Second, airplanes are obsolete and no longer the way to go. Unless you need to cross an ocean fast, there is no reason for your feet to ever leave the ground. We now have quadcopters you can hold in your hand and get you airborn from any spot anywhere. See, if you build an airplane, and assuming you finish it... first you'll need a shop... tools... a 20 ft trailer to move that airplane and retrieve it from off field landings.. a truck to pull said trailer... a hanger to store your 20ft x 40ft big airplane in... your own graded airstrip to take it off from, because you'll find airport hanger feets are untenable... and then... maybe then.. it would be wise to get some glider instruction first. Add allt hat up, and it's a lot more expensive than just building an airplane from scratch. For$150, I can have you up in the air in less than a week with a sim. For under $1500, I can have you up in the air in a month or two with a fully aerobatic quadcopter you can hold in your hand with a digital video feed. Building an airplane is actually.. in 2023.. the worst way to get flying. You'd have more chance of success just buying a plane ticket. If you want to see what can be done in a quad copter, and why flying straight and level to a GPS arrow would bore you tears, watch me fly. I have 3 full sized ultralights, and I don't do a darn thing with them. Airplanes are obsolete.

[@faragar1791]

5:45 Germany having jet aircraft early on would have been a shock to the British. However, I doubt that Germany would have been able to deploy them in significant enough numbers. Jet engines were (and still are) very expensive to produce, and early jet engines guzzled fuel way more than traditional piston engines. Germany's jet aircraft were built more out of desperation than they were out of practicality. The Junkers Jumo 004 was ultimately a waste of Germany's dwindling resources. Germany was in a war of attrition, and there is no way Germany could build an aircraft advanced enough that would take out the waves and waves of aircraft Russia and the USA were producing. Just look at the Tiger II tank. It was arguably one of the best tanks in the world at the time, but the time it took for one Tiger II to be built in Germany, the USA would have built ten Sherman tanks in the same amount of time. If your enemy is building tanks faster than you can kill them, you're going to lose eventually, it doesn't matter how advanced your military vehicles are. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZPMnmWhfNybpsU

[@Tom-jw7ii]

Even if Germany could’ve built as many aircraft and tanks as the USA or USSR, it wouldn’t have helped because you need a lot more manpower to operate and maintain them, as well as a lot more resources. The thing about the 262 is that it didn’t need a lot of them to get results. If used properly, it could safely shoot down a bomber or two even while greatly outnumbered.

[@wanderschlosser1857]

You certainly don't know much about the early jets. Jumo 004 was about 3-4 times cheaper than a comparative piston engine such as the Jumo 213. And the jet fuel was much cheaper, too compared to high octane piston engine fuel. There were about 1200 Me262 built plus hundreds of He162 and Ar234's. The development and manufacturing of those early German jets were a logic consequence of the war situation and these aircraft were quite successful, too. These planes certainly were not last ditch waste as you call it. The real problem was the war situation in 44 and 45, no fuel, no pilots, Allied air superiority. The war was lost long before the jets were operational.

[@مقاطعمترجمة-ش8ث]

@@wanderschlosser1857 + the jet engine were not that reliable it flights hours were too low, and replacement were not all time ready, but still agree, what's made these jet lost is the lack of fuel to run them .

[@faragar1791]

@@Tom-jw7ii It wasn't just manpower that Germany was lacking, they were short on all resources. They lacked fuel, steel, and food. The 262 was decent and shooting down a bomber or two, but the allies were building those bombers faster than the Germans could ever hope to shoot them down. While the 262 was great in the air, it couldn't stay in the air forever. It had to land on airfields and be refueled and maintained. Most 262s were shot down while they were trying to land/takeoff because that is when they were vulnerable. Your air superiority fighter doesn't accomplish anything if it doesn't have a safe airfield to land and launch from. The 262 didn't just fail because of its design, but the whole logistics structure for supporting that aircraft was flawed and was constantly under attack. And that's why it failed. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZPMnmWhfNybpsU

[@faragar1791]

@@wanderschlosser1857 Even if the jets were operational near the beginning of the war, they still would have lost due to the overwhelming numbers of the allies. The USA could build 10 tanks in the same amount of time it took germany to build just ONE! It's mathematically impossible for Germany to win WW2 regaudless of the technology they had. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZPMnmWhfNybpsU

[@Flies2FLL]

IF you look very carefully at the engine you will see that the "bullet" at the front has a hole and a small metal bar that goes across the front. Inside the "bullet" is a two stroke two cylinder Riedel starter engine, and that bar is actually the pull starter for this engine, which is used to bring the Jumo engine core up to about 2000 rpm, where it can be lit off.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The Riedel APU had a cockpit activated electric starter, the rope starter was a redundant auxcillery back-up.

[@gottmituns3225]

Electric...

[@Flies2FLL]

@@gottmituns3225 Turboprops and very small jets use electric starters. This one used a 2 stroke piston engine.

[@zaphodbeeblebrox5973]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Must be a motor jet then and not a turbo jet, exactly the same arrangement as on the Whittle Unit which you claim makes it a motor jet

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@zaphodbeeblebrox5973 *No, the Riedel starter was connected to the jet engine with a one-way sprag clutch that automatically disengaged at 30% of compressor rpm.* *Better luck next time lad.*

[@jonesscotta79]

First time commenter. I think you’re spot on regarding the balance between needs and wants for wartime production. This engine sports most of the fundamental architectures still used in modern engines. I don’t think it is too easy to extrapolate what would have happened with full support of the German government earlier for sole use in fighter type aircraft rather than bombers. 2000+ lbs thrust…with an axial compressor so early in the war wasn’t followed for years by the Allies. Great content. Unfortunately, Whittle was having his own challenges in England and was pursuing without full support. When something truly revolutionary comes along, it’s hard to change old minds.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Whittle effectively sabotaged his own career with his reputation for drug and alcohol abuse... he was also caught plagerizing the work of A.A Griffiths the head of Engine development at the Royal Aircraft Establishment.

[@jimdavison4077]

You need to look a bit deeper. First off the Early on the Brits nationalized the Whittle Power Jet engine which gave every other turbine engineer the ability to use Whittles design free of patent infringement which is why there were three different Centrifugal jet engines in full wide scale production before Germany made a single reliable one. The Jumo 004B was made of mild stamped steel which suffered heat wharp when pushed at full throttle. It was lower powered and could only sustain full throttle for minutes before it would make the engine need a complete rebuild. Metropolitan Vickers had their first axial flow jet engine test flown in 1941 and a series of more advanced kept being tested as the war progressed including the first successful turbofan and turboprop engines. Thing was Propeller driven British fighters we able to deal with the 262 meaning there was never a rush to put British jets into an escalated development which show because the Meteor and Vampire would serve into the 1970's. Both surpassed the 262 in performance as did the Tempest and Spitfire in some very important ways. Both could out dive the 262 and out maneuver it. Their machine guns had 1700 yards service range compared to the 262's Mk 108 30mm cannon with it's 500 yard range. So by the time the Jumo 004B entered series production in Aug 44 the Brits had several jet engines more advanced in production.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 I see you are still trotting out your garbage. You still haven't come up with any evidence whatsoever for your absurd accusation of plagiarism. And remember, when you claim that this happened Griffiths wasn't head of Engine development at the Royal Aircraft Establishment.

[@outlet6989]

If America had gotten into the jet engine development race earlier, we would have seen four jet engine B-17s and B-24s.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Development of the B-45, XB-46 and XB-48 all began during WW2 and would have been the first jet bombers in USAAF service. The Boeing B-47 started development at this time but was completely scrapped after a set of plans for a new German jet bomber were captured by the von Karman mission. The blue prints and wind tunnel data for the B-47 were discovered by Boeing engineer Goerge Scherer and flown back to America the next day.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

There is a lot of hate and misinformation from Western sources regarding the Jumo -004, it was one of the greatest achievements in aviation history and the best jet engine produced during WW2.. and that causes a lot of resentment for some... and denial that German aircraft technology was better than the Allies.

[@redbaron9029]

Must have been the brits and french

[@liamh2001]

Yeah right, 2 words: Hawker. Tempest. Cry me a river Gerry lol

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@liamh2001 Indeed, the Tempest was no match for the Messerschmitt Me-262...

[@gscranage4594]

🇬🇧

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@gscranage4594 *Please name a single British company that still makes British jet aircraft in the UK?*

[@andrewfischer8564]

17:58 disproven hitlers interferance had 0 effect on the time line. if this becomes a thread ill try and get the source and post for your evaluation.

[@oxcart4172]

After the war, Franz joined Lycoming and was responsible for the Cobra, Uroquois and Chinook helicopter engines and the Abrams tank engine! And the S.E.5a in the video is part of the Shuttleworth Collection in England. If you're thinking about going, DO IT! It's fantastic!

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Excellent comment.

[@oxcart4172]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Thank u very much!

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 It's interesting isn't it Sandyboy that all those engines are based on Whittle 1930 patent, do you remember how Pabst von Ohain described it - "The first patent of a turbojet engine, which was later developed and produced, was that of Frank Whittle, now Sir Frank (see Fig. 5). His patent was applied for in January 1930. This patent shows a multistage, axial-flow compressor followed by a radial compressor stage, a combustor, an axial-flow turbine driving the compressor, and an exhaust nozzle."

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

Yes, though interestingly none of them are jet engines though they all conform to Frank Whittle's patent of 1930. Although just after Franz left Lycoming in 1968 they did start development of the ALF 502 turbofan which I am sure must have at least have been initiated by Franz.

[@worldtraveler930]

Let's have a discussion about the BMW jet engine?!?

[@lauriepocock3066]

Two things, 1 we know alot more about German engineering that Allied technology because in 1945 Russia goes its own way and we want tell them just ho much we know about their technology they have secured whilst keeping our know how under secure wraps. 2 there were not enough Germans jets to warrent putting our jet aircraft into the front line. Whittle goes for a centrifugal fan because its manufacturable, he recognised the problems a radial compressor would cause. In the US when you get your hands on our jet engine because of 2 you have time to develop a radial, like wise Metrovick were working quietly away on a radial compressor in the UK. The other thing you have to realise is both German and British governments really screwed up on jet development but had Germany done things different I think you will find we had solutions to the problem in hand, we just didnt need to play that card.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Allies didn't have a fully developed and combat effective jet fighter during WW2.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Whittle attempted to build a axial compressor... but failed. Centrifugal turbojet engines were effectively obsolete on arrival.. Germany was years ahead in development of axial turbojets.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Metrovick never developed a successfully axial turbojet and abandoned it in 1948. The first successful British axial engine was the Rolls-Royce Avon

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Neither did the nazis. As you know Sandyboy the Me 262 was about as effective as a chocolate fireguard.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 I see you've been reduced to just saying meaningless guff now Sandyboy. Let's remind you of what Pabst von Ohain had to say- " The first patent of a turbojet engine, which was later developed and produced, was that of Frank Whittle, now Sir Frank (see Fig. 5). His patent was applied for in January 1930. This patent shows a multistage, axial-flow compressor followed by a radial compressor stage, a combustor, an axial-flow turbine driving the compressor, and an exhaust nozzle. Such configurations are still used today" And "From the beginning of his jet propulsion activities, Frank Whittle had been seeking means for improving the propulsive efficiency of turbojet engines. He conceived novel ideas for which he filed a patent application in 1936, which can be called a bypass engine or turbofan. To avoid a complete new design, Whittle sought an interim solution that could be merely "tacked on" to a jet engine. This configuration was later known as the aft fan. Whittle's work on fan jets or bypass engines and aft fans was way ahead of his time. It was of greatest importance for the future or turbopropulsion."

[@anthonyxuereb792]

Turbo-props, after burning, built-in starter motor, cooling ducts and hollow blades, movable converge thrust cone, was there anything they didn't think of? The fuel igniters are only needed for start up and then switched off because the in-coming fresh fuel charge is be ignited by the out-going exhaust gas.

[@Slaktrax]

I think Whittle was just as far advanced as Germany but was continually castigated and ignored by the Brits therefore not getting any funding until RR adopted his design. This is the reason why they lagged behind.

[@davidschutz2819]

You don’t got any clue cause whittle designed a shitty centrifugal compressor while we Germans designed a true axial compressor as well as functioning afterburner so no

[@gw7624]

@@davidschutz2819 You're the one who hasn't got a clue. Britain *had* axial flow engines *before* Germany in the form of the Metrovic F.2 but decided to take a more conservative approach and employ the far more reliable centrifugal engine, making the Meteor superior to the 262 in every single way except top speed.

[@jc-d6179]

Yes, so despite the fact that his design was the worlds first running jet engine, it flew after Ohain's.

[@cageordie]

@@davidschutz2819 The Jumo engine was extremely unreliable and poorly suited to fighter use, it had to be babied. Whittle's engine was so reliable that Martin Baker are still flying the same Gloster Meteor they tested the original ejection seats in. The Jumo engines had very short service life even when they didn't catch fire.

[@banlbsc]

@@davidschutz2819 The Germans didn't invent the axial compressor ..at that time the technology was well understood, Parsons engineered/invented an axial compressor for steam turbines in 1879 which powered many generations of ships and also for electric power generation.

[@raz562]

Messerschmitt already knew the Jabo-requirement well in advance before Hitler visited the factory and declared it. They did have technical issues with the airframe, and used the “mad-man Hitler”-card to absolve themselves of any mistakes on their part, after all, it shouldn’t take that long to develop pylons strong enough to hold 250kg and/or 500kg bombs.

[@kellyshistory306]

Yep. I think the origin of the rumor about the ME262 being delayed due to being made a bomber is from the fact the first ME262 unit was a fighter bomber unit (one of the KG bomber units), and there was a lot of debate in late 1944 within the Luftwaffe about whether the ME262 was best to be used as a fighter bomber or pure fighter. While the Germans got around to fitting out really only 1 fighter unit with ME262s, they were in the process of fitting out three ground attack units with ME262s, showing a bias to use the ME262 as a fighter bomber rather than interceptor. However there was a "bomber mafia" in the luftwaffe so the root cause of prioritizing ME262 production for ground attack units was more than just Hitler being a "mad man". But the prioritizing of ground attack units for ME262s probably did affect the speed at which JG7 (Germany's only fully operational jet fighter unit in WWII) was built up.

[@johnyoung1128]

@@kellyshistory306 I think it far more likely the “rumour” was started by Adolf Galland who stated his position quite forcefully in his book “The first and the last” he quite specifically said that re engineering for a fighter bomber delayed the service entry of the aircraft.

[@kellyshistory306]

@@johnyoung1128 Galland is wrong at the very least, as the OP mentioned the ME262 already had been designed as a Jabo before Hitler saw the finished design. 'Military Aviation History' goes into it on his video on the topic (kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXW8eZdnhdqFa7c) and there were already authors like Manfred Boehme in 1980 disputing Galland's comment. There was no redesign of the ME262 to accommodate bombs, it was always intended to carry bombs along with every other German fighter design made during the war. The delays with the ME262 was due to its engines not being ready any earlier than it was, and other teething issues with the ME262 being rushed into production. Galland either misunderstood the issue (as I referenced), was just wrong, or was lying (which isn't impossible given his memoirs lied or omitted other things to cater to an image he wanted to cultivate after the war).

[@johnyoung1128]

@@kellyshistory306 There can be no doubt Galland was speaking from a particular point of view, a point of view that the aircraft was delayed into service in the role he believed it should be in, to accuse him of lying is not in my belief appropriate. I have seen the video in question and it doesn’t in my opinion resolve the matter, Galland himself said that discussion on the subject had earlier taken place between Goering and Messerschmitt and the documents quoted only confirm an intention for such a capability at a government level. Governments don’t build aircraft, aircraft manufacturers do and they are not in the habit of providing extra capability when not formally asked to and that’s particularly true of an aircraft at the cutting edge of technology and also particularly true of Messerschmitt who believed in keeping things as light as possible. I find it of significance that Milch appeared to have no knowledge of that requirement at the time of the presentation to Hitler. All sorts of possibilities come up here but to me the most likely is that Messerschmitt did not have or believed they did not have a requirement to integrate such a capability from production commencement. I don’t believe this question can be reasonably answered without formal documents between Messerschmitt and the government coming to light.

[@localenterprisebroadcastin5971]

The HE 178 was the first jet AC to actually fly

[@mikenodine6713]

Aye! The 262 was only the first operational jet to see combat. Had the 178 received government priority, it could have been in service probably by 1941 or 1942 since the 178's first flight was in August of 1939. That would have been a game changer because Germany had more resources to produce them in numbers earlier in the war rather than later in 1942. As American and British heavy bombers were being produced and fielded in the early war years, 178's in sufficient numbers might have reduced and changed the course of the strategic bombing campaign. This in turn would have allowed Germany to avoid a considerable amount of production disruption the bombing campaign caused. The end result would have likely been that Germany would have been able to delay D-Day perhaps by a year or more and the Soviets would have defeated the German homeland alone and taken most of Europe since the Allies would not have made it to West Germany when we did.

[@johnyoung1128]

@@mikenodine6713 The HE178 was really just a technology demonstrator, it would not have been the basis of a service type without an extensive redesign including a retractable landing gear!

[@mikenodine6713]

@@johnyoung1128 Granted, but as a demonstrator it clearly proved the concept yet was not given a priority status for further technology development. The landing gear was designed to be retractable but had unresolved issues so it was flown with the gear down. Because of a total lack of government interest and funding, Henkel had to develop the follow up to the 178, the HE 280 with it's own funds in 1939! Of course the ME 262 first flew THREE YEARS LATER in 1942. But the HE 280 could have potentially cut a least a year or more off of the first jet to see combat if it had been given priority in 1939. It wasn't until 1943 that the German military decided that it wanted jets, ASAP! And that was when German jet development programs were finally given top priority.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

That is correct, the first successful demonstration of a jet aircraft engine was August 27th 1939 in Rostock Germany... Frank Whittle would be the fourth person to do so in 1941.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@mikenodine6713 The success of Messerschmitt Me-262 was certainly not possible with centrifugal engines... the axial flow Jumo 109-004 Orkan engine was key to its success as was its increablily advanced aerodynamics.. Ernst Heinkel also had few friends at the top of the Nazi regime...

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Clean version 262 reached 624mph in ww2

[@brealistic3542]

Btw the outstanding aviation engineer and delta wing developer, Alexander Lippish use to write back and forth to my father about wing designs.

[@ScottTo1967]

The Gloster Meteor was operational before the me262

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The Messerschmitt Me-262 was the first operational jet fighter, it entered service with the Luftwaffe on April 19th 1944.

[@ScottTo1967]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 that was JV44. It was an evaluation sqn it wasn’t officially operational

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@ScottTo1967 That is a popular but completely false urban myth.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@ScottTo1967 The Messerschmitt Me-262 was transferred from RLM testing and entered operational Luftwaffe service with EKdo-262 on April 19th 1944, the first Allied aircraft destroyed by a Me-262 was July 26 1944. The Gloster _'Meatbox'_ didn't enter service until July 27th 1944. It never saw aerial combat against any Luftwaffe plane during WW2.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 You haven't helped yourself there Sandyboy- An Erprobungskommando (EKdo) ("Testing-command") was a variety of Luftwaffe special-purpose unit tasked with the testing of new aircraft and weaponry. And no allied aircraft was destroyed by an Me 262 on July 26 1944 although Scheiber, the Me 262 pilot claimed he had, the Mosquito in question evaded his best efforts.

[@cabanford]

They've restored ME 262 with it's original Jumo engines - they just redid some of the internals with quality metals. Amazing engineering

[@simonm1447]

Some early test engines also had been built with inconel parts, it worked fine. They just didn't have enough inconel for a serial production and used simpler material instead

[@aker1993]

The problem with that assumption that germany having jet fighters during battle of Britain is farhetch because during late 1930'S the german economy was in a shitshow due to the policy of Autarky and German metallurgical companies can't produced metals with longevity and high heat tolerance and high fuel consumption of first generation jet engines the luffwaffe will have no fuel left to allocate to that battle.

[@fowletm1992]

Yea pretty unlikely Scary to think how things would've changed if Germany had waited another few years before starting a war as was the vague plan

[@robertbolding4182]

thrust to weight .28 meaning it didn't point its nose to the sky and take off like a rocket. it lumbered into the air like an underpowered disaster. I'm gone

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

560mph.. Faster than any airbreathing aircraft in operational service during WW2..

[@zdenekburda4375]

The photo of Frank Whittle is from sometime in 1940, while the photo of Hans von Ohane is about 30 years older.

[@josephtomasello3967]

You forgot to mention the HO229

[@jimanderson9867]

Going to go ahead and guess that the model 004 wasn’t the first.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

The *Heinkel HeS 8* was RLM designation 109 *-001* followed by the BMW 109-002 and -003 engines.

[@grantmace4955]

Perfect beginner plane go fo it man its just adult Legos lol

[@Sacto1654]

Interestingly, the first really high-powered jet engines all operated with a centrifugal flow design, notable examples being the early British jet engines and the Heinkel HeS 011 (which was a mixed axial-centrifugal design). The Jumo 004's axial-flow design was better-suited for more powerful engine designs, and the modern jet engines mostly use axial-flow principles.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Maxime Guillaume patented the turbojet in 1921 and shows an axial compressor. Whittle's 1930 patent design clearly shows a first stage axial compressor. The world's first production jet engine was the axial Jumo 004 Orkan. Centrifugal compressor turbojet engines are less efficient and produce less thrust. Early Allied jet engines used centrifugal compressors simply because they lacked the technology to produce axial compressors. The are obsolete in aircraft because as thrust increases so does frontal surface area and aerodynamic drag. No aircraft powered by a centrifugal compressor turbojet ever reacted Mach 1 in level flight.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Oh dear Sandyboy I see you are still trotting out tripe. The Jumo 004 was crap which is why nobody bothered with it much after the war. Both the British and the Americans had axial flow engines developed during the war but wisely understood the metallurgical demands and went for the more durable centrifugal flow engines that could provided more thrust than was useful for the practical airframe. The longevity of centrifugal flow engines and their use in some of the most successful jets proves your dismissal to be baseless.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

​@@sandervanderkammen9230 Now Sandyboy I know you are in love with Guillaume's patent and its sweet little crank handle, but there is more to a patent than just looks. Have you ever considered actually reading the patent?

[@jeromebreeding3302]

Kind of" long in the tooth" for a project like that, but for a Curtis J-4 Jenny, perhaps. It trained many pilots before WWI. Underpowered but forgiving of novices.

[@Lykyk]

The thing about Hitler suddenly demanding the Me262 also has to be a bomber and thus delaying the production is wrong, it was actually designed as one from the start. I think military aviation history has a video about it.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

Excellent comment, you are absolutely correct.

[@user-er8tr9kt8l]

"Military aviation history" is junk. Just because the 262 technically c o u l d be a bomber does not mean it was designed as such. Everyone that has any clue about aviation knows this. You would not really claim the Ju52 was designed as a bomber just because it was used as one right? See ... Having to mount the bombs so far from the center of gravity on such a small aircraft like the 262 means its obviously n o t a born bomber ... it would have had a different landing gear arrangement if so.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@user-er8tr9kt8l Modern jet fighters are no different than the Me-262, they are multi-role attack aircraft with bombing capability. This is not unique to jet fighters either, many successful propeller driven fighters were also bombers, the P-51 Mustang carried a similar bomb load and had a dedicated bomber variant, the A-36 Mustang. The most successful propeller driven fighter in history, the Bf-109 was also designed to carry bombs.

[@user-er8tr9kt8l]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Yes ... thats why they left some space between the landing gears of the 109. And 190, P51, P47, Spitfire, Meteor etc. ... unlike the 262 ... since it should not become a bomber.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@user-er8tr9kt8l The Messerschmitt Me-262 didn't have a spinning propeller.. the bombs could be mounted without concern for clearance issues.

[@briandietrich1373]

Germans are brilliant!

[@michaelcasia7264]

The genius Germany

[@jamesb.9155]

I was curious about this first tried and true German jet engine and sure enough you have covered it here for us.

[@ramblingriver]

I hate to be that guy, but.... Quantum 2:20 means "small" or "Tiny". So when people refer to a "Quantum Leap", they are actually saying "a small or tiny leap in technology". Like maybe going from 67, to 78 octane in fuel. Not a complete different engine design that skyrocketed power to weight ratios. Ps. Just subscribed.

[@JF-xq6fr]

6:12 Looks like something from the first Dune movie... Oh, and moar bolts!!! Hell, if the Germans got ahold of this Rube Goldburg steampunks ultimate fantasy, they would have used it to make schnapps.

[@terryboehler5752]

400 hours means 400 efficient, no mistakes hours. How much progress do you normally make in an hour? Not being a dick, I just want you to succeed. Do work every day. Get lost in the work and don't worry about the progress. You will love the journey as you look back. I have built airplanes. My last six months build took seven years.

[@The_New_IKB]

WW2 German R&D was such a mess I boggles the mind that they got anything done

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

They only managed to produce the first operational jet fighter, jet bomber, cruise missiles and the first operational supersonic guided ballistic missiles that reached space... the Allies had nothing comparable.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 But they were all of no consequence which is rather the point.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 You are right Sandyboy, the allies were short of stupid ineffective vanity vengeance projects.

[@stephenjacks8196]

Me262 prototypes had glider then propeller in nose, then BM003, then jumo004.

[@damianousley8833]

Whittle knew all about the radial axial turbojet design but went with the centripetal jet engine as it was at that time a more reliable engine. Centripetal jet engines powered the early Western and Soviet jets after ww2. The radial axial turbo jets took some time to develop reliability and it wasn't until about 1950 that radial jet engines became the main development in jet engines and then evolve into modern fuel efficient turbo fan designs.one has to be aware that the service life of the jump engines was only a maximum of 20 hours of operation. In actual use due to throttling problems and running the engines at near maximum thrust the service life decreased to 10 to 11 hours. I have always wondered how many german pilots of ME 262's died when the aircraft lost an engine due to fatigue issues and it was impossible to eject due to the death spiral the aircraft rapidly went into after an engine loss. Many pilots were lost with the gloster meteor due to the same problem.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

That is all completely false and misleading urban myths. Whittle's 1930 patent design clearly shows a Axial compressor but he never had the ability to build one. Centrifugal turbojet engines are less reliable and are inferior to axial compressor turbojet engines. German axial turbojet engine has average to above average reliability. Please stop spreading your lies and misinformation

[@damianousley8833]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 It still took many years of development before axial turbojets be reliable. German engineers did many cribs to get around the blade problems but they could not get around the shortages of hight temperature alloying materials to make the blades reliable for long duration operation. Face it, the Nazis didn't have the raw materials to even use even engineering of weapon systems to gain a strategic advantage over the mass production of the Allies. What use is an advanced jet fighter or armoured vehicles if you don't have sufficient fuel or trained pilots or tank crews to use them effectively. Once the German front lines were breached and their rear echelons were threatened they had no option but to retreat or be militarily routed.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

@@damianousley8833 Its very obvious that you lack any formal education or professional experience in the field of aviation or gas turbine engines. Please stop spreading your lies and misinformation about jet engines... you are not qualified to speak inteligently about them.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@sandervanderkammen9230 You do talk crap Sandyboy all the more when you've got your hand up a sock puppet.

[@arian2564]

Excuseme what is (MASHISHMA) IT spell is( Mester s met) Mr.smit understand ?

[@brealistic3542]

Better you make a very large RC version me thinks. One that can be flown from the cockpit view. The SE5 is a very big plane. What about a Fokker D7 ? Its much more manauvable and prettier.

[@robertmiller2173]

Hanz Von Ohain the true inventor of the first Jet Engine and jet aircraft which flew in August 1939 with the famous He 178. Hanz's jet actually looks like a jet engine, Whittles looks like a monster

[@markhepworth]

🤦‍♂️🤡😆

[@zaphodbeeblebrox5973]

No he wasn't, not only did Frank Whittle have his running 2 moths BEFORE Von Ohein, he patented it in 1929, 6 years before Von Ohein started work on his engine. The Germans got Von Oheins engine into an airframe first, but that is all

[@robertmiller2173]

This doesn't stand up to the scrutiny by the vast number of Historians who have researched this topic! Hanz Von Ohain had his engine flying in August 1939 where as Whittles engine didn't fly until 1942.@@zaphodbeeblebrox5973

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

​@@zaphodbeeblebrox5973WRONG, Frank Whittle did not invent the jet engine. He was only the fourth person to successfully demonstrate a working jet aircraft engine and is only rightful to claim the first I the UK only. Whittles patent was found to be invalid in 1935 as it infringed on Maxime Guillaume earlier patent in 1921. Whittle was forced to allow his patent to expire in 1935 or face legal Action. Whittle was not the first to achieve anything related to jets or jet engine development.

[@sandervanderkammen9230]

​@@zaphodbeeblebrox5973You are very confused and misinformed. Hans von Ohain and Max Hahnn were the first to build a turbojet engine in Göttingen Universität in 1934. Whittle would not construct a his first motorjet (W.U.) until 1936 after moving to Rugby. The W.U. was powered by a 4-cylinder Austin Dixie engine.

[@robertmiller2173]

It wasn't that good; German fighters of WW1 could smash this aircraft.... the best British Aircraft was the Sopworth Camel.

[@davidvavra9113]

And of course, this made me think of Clarke's famous story, Superiority.

[@tsegulin]

Excellent video. I've followed the development of the Me-262 and Jumo 004-009 'Orkan' gas turbine for many years and what you describe here seems to hit all the key points, nicely illustrated with the 3d cutaway graphics. The problem with the availability of strategic ores to make high temperature alloys was raised in your video in the DB-601 and I understood it was a major factor in the delay adapting the 009A test version to the 009B production variant and a major reason for the combat flame-outs and short service life. This is detailed in Calum Dougals' book "The Secret Horsepower Race" with regard to reciprocating engines (an excellent book). It's amazing the Germans were able to produce such competitive engines at all, especially gas turbines. I hadn't heard that industrial maneuvering by Ernst Heinkel's competitors was responsible for the RLM virtually ignoring his He-S jet engines and the He-280, but Willy Messerschmitt was known to play industrial politics well and Heinkel wasn't especially liked since he wasn't a full-blown Nazi Party supporter. You mention that the Me-262 being delayed in service as a fighter because of Hitler's desire to see it converted to a fast bomber. That was how I always understood it too, but Chris over at Military Aviation History offers a more nuanced discussion of how this came to be Apparently there is evidence that Messerschmitt had designed the ability to carry bombs into the aircraft quite early on - it was not just the result of a sudden, unexpected demand by Hitler. A great video - thanks.

[@johnyoung1128]

Interesting as Galland himself did describe it as a forced re designation from fighter to bomber at the insistence of Hitler.

[@tsegulin]

@@johnyoung1128 Yes, that's what he said in his book and what I had believed until the Military Aviation History video.

[@johnyoung1128]

@@tsegulin I’m sorry but I don’t believe the video you mention satisfactorily resolves the matter. It only established a desire for such a capability at a governmental level, it does not detail what the formal requirement was with the aircraft manufacturer. It was an interesting video but without documents concerning the specifications that Messerschmitt was working to there is still much room for variations in opinion.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

1st it must be Jumo 109- 004 2nd Orkan is the R4M Rocket`s codename. Iwill not waste time to correct the rest. don`you guys even read the basics ? (:-))

[@robertmiller2173]

Wow! what a fantastic program. I normally get myself into trouble on You Tube because I point out the fact that Hanz Von Ohain invented the first Operational Jet Engine with the He 178 in August 1939. For some reason this statement outrages the Brits/English viewers. I have been hammered for saying what is clearly True! Under Patent Law, one has to prove Utility! In other words that the Idea works and Hanz Von Ohain proved this first. For G sake I'm a New Zealander, we have lost so many of our finest fighting in the New Zealand Wars, Boar War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc etc. But it is the Brits that can not accept that the Jet Engine that flew first proving utility was that of Hanz Von Ohain and Heinkel; the Junkers Jumo 004 and the BMW etc! Hopefully I won't be crucified by angry Brits this time!

[@davidbertrand895]

They were always called "jet fighters." Now they're "fighter jets." What happened?

[@demonhighwayman9403]

Don't buy it, you only have 25k subs, will the price of the replica be covered by a few youtube videos ?

[@wolfhalupka8992]

there is one very important sentence in this vid.... basically "if there had been enough german production left to manufacture those a/c in numbers..." well, thanks to the RAF and USAAF, there wasn't.

[@kylelemire6049]

I subbed.

[@Flies2FLL]

Don't buy a replica kit plane. You are only going to get yourself dead. If you want an airplane, buy a Piper Warrior, or something like that. DON'T BUILD YOUR OWN AIRPLANE!

[@carlpopkins4]

The History of German Aviation the First Jet Aircraft by Wolfgang Wagner has lots of information on this topic.

[@ThatZenoGuy]

Please make non-substance stuff at the END of the video. A video should not be prefaced with 2 minutes of nothing. Thank you. -KZbin Improvement Leader Zeno

[@ByWire-yk8eh]

Tarmac. I think that word was coined by the media to mean "any paved airport surface used for airplanes." Do you mean "RUNWAY"?

[@NATES84]

I sold a half built kit BD5 and I regret selling it forever. BUY IT!while your younger.

[@bravo0105]

I subscribed but not to inflict the SE5a upon you. Nevertheless, I’ll watch if you build it.

[@williamcrane8236]

Read Dick Starks "You Wanna Build and Fly A WHAT?" yet? Se5A was more the Hurricane of WWI, the Camel would be the Spit. Eh, opinions. But the Se was a Stable and predictable gun platform and I assume it will make a more stable kitbuilt plane. Certainly better then a Triplane all of which seem to be crash happy on landing. All the modern kit planes I assume have used modern aerodynamics to correct any teething problem flaws of the originals. My doctor (wife) will not allow me to fly, I barely get to fly RC thanks to current scheduals, but I was already to sell my motorcycle and start building about 10 years back. I still can, just as soon as I win the lottery, THAT seems to be on hold. Hope to see you building one.

[@josega6338]

Does the proposal of adding to your building of a Kit Airplane have any resemblance to a lottery ticket offered for customers to buy once in Barcelona: 'The associacion of Deaf-Mute will give a TV set to one of its members having the number that coincides with national lottery price of date D-M-Y' Paying to give a price to another fellow. Good joke!

[@robinwells8879]

Axial flow, air cooled blades and reheat. Holy crap we dodged a bullet there! Politicians! The antidote to the work of inspired engineers!😂

[@ltcterry2006]

At 8 minutes in the discussion of the 004 starts. So half is intro fluff. Yikes. Please get some guidance on German pronunciation. The Ju- in Junkers is the same sound as the Ju- in Jumo. But at least the J-sound is correct. von Ohain rhymes with pine not train. "von" is pronounced much like "fun" but with a much shorter vowel sound. The Germans engineered some pretty smart solutions into the engine to overcome metallurgical short comings and be forward thinking - think "onion." I'll probably watch the rest.

[@heydonray]

You cheated on the “first” 262 footage…shoulda been the tw prototype rather than doctored footage of a modern reproduction. Just saying.

[@indopleaser]

like engineering, automotive, and the engine videos. dont think would watch 400 hour build of an airplane. would be happy for you to own an airplane and would do wonders for youtube channel. KZbins algorithms are very skewed, takes perfection to subscribe. watch all your videos all ready, so, no reason to subscribe.

[@philkelly8031]

Germany was well ahead of many countries with even more than the jet engine glad from Hitler down didn’t push them into production or the Second World War could have turned out far different.

[@grevberg]

It almost look like Germany wasn't meant to win? Besides jet engines were 1/3 cheaper and faster to build.

[@colewellnitz1470]

19:25 "help from a renowned blade vibrational specialist" blew my mind, like what does a person in that occupation do? What would this person be needed for before jet engines have even really been known to exist?

[@kieranh2005]

Steam turbines had been around in large numbers for decades at that point.

[@allangibson2408]

@@kieranh2005 About 65 years at that stage (since 1884).

[@lazarus2691]

Steam turbines. They were invented back in 1884, and were being used in power plants and ships by the turn of the century (the first steam turbine ship was SS Turbinia in 1894) Perhaps a more famous example was HMS Dreadnought in 1906; the steam turbines were one of the features that set her apart from her peers, giving unprecedented speed for such a large ship. Given that she effectively rendered every other warship obsolete, steam turbines quickly became standard for medium to large ships; by 1940 they were ubiquitous. I'm less knowledgeable on power plants, but I'd guess that by 1940 the majority of coal plants in Germany were using steam turbines. So yeah, plenty of work for a blade specialist.

[@kieranh2005]

I didnt know how long they'd been in operation in the stationary engines, I only started following the history from the _Turbinia_ on.

[@handlesarefeckinstupid]

Well I worked as a vibration analyst and a lot of my work was in steam turbines and even bearings on constant use machinery (predictive maintenance). I'm going to presume they used them in the early days (of sorts).

[@gregrees9146]

Where do you live? If you are close I will help build the SE-5a. I'm near knoxville TN

[@Nixontheman]

Don’t buy the kit, just go get a piper cub and go flying. The kit plane is so much more work than anyone tells you.

[@MrSwj2009]

WW2 German Ace Adolf Galland famous quote on flying the ME-262, "For the first time I was flying by jet propulsion. No engine vibrations. No torque and no lashing sound of the propeller. Accompanied by a whistling sound, my jet shot through the air. It felt as though angels were lifting me."

[@NoSTs123]

100,000 that is 4 times of what you have now. you also did not credit the creator of the animation of the engine.

[@raycharles6796]

first video was at bigglestwade, shutleworth collection went there five time a year for 4 yesr. dead givaway the ouse and barn in the bcckgounnd

[@davekreitzer4358]

Good video , great research , thanks for sharing !

[@elschicko3317]

Great video, but holy crap have you butchered the name „Göttingen“.

[@netpackrat]

If you are going to actually fly it, stay far away from the WWI era stuff. Most of it wasn't designed with any thought or often even knowledge of desirable flight characteristics that we take for granted today. In short, they are dangerous and crap to fly.