Who really won the jet race? It's complicated...

The Gloster Meteor was the first British Jet aircraft to enter squadron service. It was the culmination of Allied efforts to win a top-secret race that lasted the entire Second World War - the race for speed. As soldiers fought on battlefields across the world, British and German engineers went head-to-head in battle to build an engine that would change aerial warfare forever.
In this episode of Duxford in Depth, IWM Project curator Robert Rumble dives into the history of the jet engine. Who led the British and German effort? What challenges did they overcome? And who really won the jet race?
Note - The engine diagram shown at 4:33 is an axial flow turboshaft engine, not a turbojet engine.
Explore and licence the film clips used in this video from IWM Film:
film.iwmcollec...
How has conflict has driven innovation in science and technology?: www.iwm.org.uk...
Find out more about the Gloster Meteor: www.iwm.org.uk...
Follow IWM on social media:
/ i_w_m
/ imperialwarmuseums
/ iwm.london
Thumbnail image credits:
Gloster Meteor T7 by Ronnie Macdonald / CC BY 2.0 creativecommon...
Me 262 replica at Airpower11 MatthiasKabel / CC BY-SA 3.0 creativecommon...
Creative Commons attributions:
Strahlflugzeug Heinkel He 178 by Bundesarchiv, Bild 141-2505 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommon...
Centrifugal Turbojet diagram original design by Emoscopes, Vectorization by Tachymètre / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommon...
Axial Turbojet diagram original design by Emoscopes, Vectorization byMilu92 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommon...
He 162 underground production by Bundesarchiv, Bild 141-2737 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommon...

[@PitFriend1]

Tricycle landing gear wasn’t really an innovation by the time of the Me-262. Other aircraft had used it such as the P-39 Airacobra.

[@patrickstewart3446]

It wasn’t even the first German jet with tricycle landing gear. That was the He 280 (from which Messerschmitt stole the idea to get the 262 to reliably takeoff).

[@prycenewberg3976]

And the Ercoupe. I know it's not a military plane, but it pre-dates WW2 and has tricycle gear.

[@alanelesstravelled8218]

The early prototypes had tail dragger undercarriage. Problems getting the aircraft's tail up required the pilot to give a dab on the brakes to raise the tail.

[@magoid]

The narrative that the Me-262 was late to enter operation because of Hitler's meddling, is wrong. The engines were the problem. The airframe itself was ready long before the engines. Also, the first versions were in fact pure fighters without any bomb carriage capability.

[@geordiedog1749]

Also,weren’t they always going to be fighter bomber - schnellbombers - according to Willie M?

[@latch9781]

Lord Hardthrasher (very reliable source) has a good vid on that iirc

[@Vladimirthetiny]

The TBO was ridiculously low

[@colinhobbs7265]

@@geordiedog1749 All WW2 fighters were fighter bombers by the end of the war, as we have learned with modern military aircraft that is simply the best way to do things.

[@onenote6619]

@@geordiedog1749 At least one variant was tested with a bomb-aimer lying prone in the nose above an aiming window.

[@ToniPfau]

@Imperial War Museums The drawing of the "Axial Flow Turbojet Engine" (4:35) that you borrowed from Wikipedia is wrong. That is a turboshaft engine of the sort most familiarly used in turboprop aircraft. A turboshaft engine has a free turbine and associated power output shaft as this drawing does. A turbojet engine has neither a free turbine nor output shaft. Instead, the high velocity exhaust exits not to the side, as this drawing shows, but along the axis of the engine, where the output shaft is shown. Sorry to point this out, but it's clearly not up to the IWM's usual high standards.

[@TheSeventhSeal]

This vid is full of mistakes

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

As was stated by Eric Brown himself, the Messerschmitt Me-262 was a decade ahead of anything the Allies had during WW2... and over 100 mph faster!

[@Stephen.Bingham]

I recall picking up from somewhere that raw material shortages played a significant role in preventing widespread deployment of early German jets. In particular I think that they had a problem sourcing Chromium and hence producing the Stainless Steel that was used in these engines.

[@onenote6619]

That is true. And the German engineers got around that to some extent by using mild steel coated in aluminium and diverting some of the compressor air for cooling. There was, I recall, also some experimentation with 'dimpling' the blade surfaces so as to hold a film of cooling air - a technique that was definitely used in post-war jets. Even so, the service life was horribly short.

[@peterstickney7608]

Somewhat of a factor, but the real issue was the fairly primitive internal aerodynamics of the BMW and Junkers jets. Having engines that would keep running from Full Fuel tanks until Empty was the big issue. The short engine lives and heavy maintenance burden that they imposed were something that the Germans weren't prepared for.

[@Stephen.Bingham]

Perhaps I might add that I’m not a big fan of the “special genius” theory of history. For example, the UK entered the Industrial Revolution significantly earlier than continental Europe. Was this the inherent genius of the/us Brits, or was it merely that coal and iron ore was pretty much lying around on the surface, rather than being deep under ground as is typical on the continent?

[@nerdyali4154]

@@Stephen.Bingham Is Britain the only place on the planet with open cast coal mines and iron ore lying around? What is the "special genius" theory of history? If it's that societal and technological advances rely on scientific knowledge, education and the efforts of a small number of geniuses then it looks fairly undeniable to me.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

NICKEL was only available in commercial quantities in Canada during WW2... Germany had supplies of Chromium. Krupp P-198 Chromadur a high temperature creep resistant stainless steel was used to construct the turbine blades and combustors of the Jumo 004B. It is still used in jet engine production today sold as A286 alloy.

[@JBils41]

Interestingly The few Meteors deployed to fly in the European Theatre had to be painted all white… Because the greatest threat to them wasn’t the 262… it was allied fighters and anti aircraft guns…

[@warpigeonofdoom]

Me262 wasn’t really a threat to anyone, except their pilots.

[@heneagedundas]

Only the first 4 were white. When the rest of the squadron joined them they were in standard camo. Note the white ones were flown around to familiarise AA crews with the noise and shape of the Meteor.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@warpigeonofdoom 26 Messerschmitt Me-262 pilots scored Ace or higher shooting down over 550 Allied aircraft. Kurt Welter remains the highest scoring Jet Ace in history, the Gloster _'meatbox'_ as it was named by RAF pilots only killed british pilots during WW2. Official MoD record show that 890 crashed killing 450 pilots in RAF service alone, 1,800 aircraft lost in total worldwide.

[@jimdavison4077]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke How many flight hours operationally did the 262 have post war? A handful in Czechoslovakia and that's it while the Meteor flew into the 1970's. Luftwaffe claims mean nothing since they were shown to be false. FG 45 claimed four kills yet only one turned out to be real on one day alone. Based on those numbers if the Luftwaffe 262 pilots shot down 200 aircraft with the 262 they were lucky.

[@petemaly8950]

​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Muncherz Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Jurkzxoffenz etc & co - they should note with great awe & wonder. British military aircraft at the time did not have unusually high accident losses rates. *For example* De Havilland Vampire & Sea Vixen & Gloster Meteor accident losses were not high or unusual for fighter aircraft at the time. Non combat phase accident losses % of Aircraft built. *Lockheed XF104 (ff 1954) 100%* *Vought F8 Crusader (ff 1955) 54%* *Lockheed P80 (ff 1944) 43%* *Lockheed F104 (ff 1954) 45%* *McDonnell FH Phantom (ff 1945) 35%* *_Gloster Meteor (ff 1943) 17%_* *_DH Vampire (ff 1943) 23%_* *_DH Sea Vixen (ff 1951) 33%_* *C H E E R S* 👍 & 😎 & of course 🙂 indeed. _Toodle_ *PIP* -Old- *_Chap_* . ... . ............. cvxcvxxiiiicvxcv

[@keithrosenberg5486]

Since nobody got enough jet aircraft in active service to make a real difference in WWII, nobody "won" the race.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

26 Luftwaffe pilots scored Ace or higher shooting down over 550 Allied aircraft... the Gloster Meatbox only killed british pilots.

[@stevetheduck1425]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke - and of course those robot drone civilian-killers, the V-1. The German ace pilots did not get to go home, or pass on their skills to younger pilots. So,e, due to wounds, went home just long enough to get married. Very few aces survived the war on the German side. Hitler said of dying: 'That's what young men are for!' British 'aces' tended to be removed from the front line to command air fighting schools, where combat tactics were taught. Sometimes they got bored and went back to the front line as formation commanders.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@stevetheduck1425 The Meatbox was tested in the V1 interceptor role but was quickly replaced by faster more capable piston engine fighters like the Mosquito and the Tempest. the british jets never shot down a single Luftwaffe plane, they only killed RAF pilots during WW2.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@stevetheduck1425 The british Gloster Meatbox only killed RAF pilots during WW2 890 crashed in RAF service killing 450 british pilots.

[@sealioso]

They only used the me 262 because they were desperate. The raf wasn't

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The World's first successful demonstration of a working jet engine was the Heinkel He-178 on August 27th 1939... two years before Frank Whittle who would be the FOURTH person to conduct such a demonstration. A brilliant German engineer named Helmut Schelp would convince the RLM that centrifugal turbojets were an evolutionary dead-end concept and should be abandoned in favor of the superior Axial turbojet engine, The Gloster Meteor was a hastily converted from a twin-engine night fighter design developed for the Bristol Centaurus radial engines... a highly compromised jet aircraft design it proved to be unsuitable as fighter and would only kill British pilots during WW2.

[@beefgoat80]

@4:31 the title of the graphic says "turbojet", but the graphic shows a turboshaft. If that was a way to get more engagement, I salute you. lol

[@SoloRenegade]

no, it's incompetence, just like the horribly wrong explanation at 1:28 shows.

[@beefgoat80]

@@SoloRenegade perhaps the entire video was AI generated? Those mistakes in the video kind of reek of AI. Or, someone who has no idea how to do research. Like, at all.

[@daniel_f4050]

I hadn’t realized that the Meteors made it into squadron service first. But I do know that it most certainly wasn’t even close to being advanced, let alone unusual, due to its use of a nose wheel tricycle landing gear. Even before WWII there had been many fighters and bombers designed with a steerable nose wheel. So unless I fully misunderstood what was being said that point makes little sense.

[@johnburns4017]

The Meteor was advanced for the time. The pilot was fully forward with exceptional vision with a bubble canopy, and hearing little of the engines. Steered tricycle landing gear, high tail to avoid jet thrust. All jet planes after adopted this layout. The 262 was based on a 1938 piston engine design, and it shows.

[@TheManFrayBentos]

One thing I wouldn't ascribe to early jets is 'energy efficiency'. They guzzled fuel at a tremendous rate, and were considerably worse in fuel efficiency than their piston forebears.

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

thats got 0 to do with energy efficiency tho

[@SerenaBluee]

​@@datcheesecakeboi6745 How exactly does fuel usage have nothing to do with energy efficiency?

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

@@SerenaBluee fuel has literally 0 bearing on it other then added weight

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@SerenaBluee Fuel consumption is a critical factor in SFC which can be expressed as fuel efficiency... but without noting the amount of power produced (jets produce much more power than piston engines) fuel consumption alone tells us nothing. what is obvious is the tremendous difference in speed and climb rate compared to piston engine aircraft... so that energy has to come from somewhere. without considering power output you cannot compare fuel consumption of jets vs, piston engine aircraft.

[@kristus20]

A Jet engine is not and will never be more fuel efficient than a piston engine. Especially those early jet engines, they were not designed with any form of fuel efficiency in mind. What they do have is a great power to weight ratio. But seriously, only the most modern newest generations of turbofan engines can even get close to the fuel efficiency of the big 1950’s radial aircraft engines.

[@drstrangelove4998]

It’s not complicated, it’s quite simple. Capt Eric Brown, who was responsible for evaluating all the German advanced jets at RAE Farnborough said: “without a shadow of doubt, the ME262 was the most formidable aircraft of WW2!” I think I would take his word for it. Btw, Brown also said the ‘dangerous’ Volksjäger would run rings around a Meteor had they met in combat.” And it wasn’t ‘difficult to fly,’ Brown found it a delight to fly. It’s all on record in Eric Brown’s books, and on many film interviews of Brown interviews all over the internet, and American records if anyone cares to look.

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

brown seems to not be the brightest then does he?

[@MatthewNJDavis]

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 Having the record for the greatest number of different aircraft flown, I'd likely take heed in his words about the aircraft. But sure; about other things, he may very well be very wrong.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 Brown is highly respected and is considered by many to be the greatest test pilot in history, I believe he still holds the record for flying the most aircraft types in his career.

[@swiftymorgan5064]

Dr Strangelove - you've said this before in a previous post Why the need to keep repeating yourself?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@swiftymorgan5064 The truth bears repeating.

[@AtleMyhre]

Fascinating to see the development at Gloster from the Gladiator to the Meteor, only 8 years of difference in the years they were set in production.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Like Bell in America they got the work because their conventional aircraft attempts were donkeys and their design and development offices were gathering dust. The later/last Gloster Javelin was also a crude dog.

[@nerdyali4154]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 The P-39 was hardly a donkey. it was as good as anything at low altitude and eight Soviet P-39 pilots achieved 30 or more victories.

[@heneagedundas]

Also note that the start of the war 616 Sqn were flying Gloster Gauntlet biplane.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

And just 8 years to the Javelin... which would ultimately bring the demise of the Gloster company.

[@peterstickney7608]

If you look at what was actually being accomplished, with reference to jet engines, the Germans were running a distant Third by January 1944 - the jet engine development race was between Great Britain and the U.S. - both producing reliable, high thrust (for the time) engines with sufficient handling margins, that allowed normally skilled pilots to fly them without excessive losses. In early 1944, Stanley Hooker, the Head Jet Guy at Rolls-Royce, visited the U.S., and found that G.E. had 2 4,000 lbf thrust jets running - the Centrifugal I-40 (J33), and the axial TG-180 (J35). Westinghouse had the axial Model 19 (J30) in production, and was about to run the Model 24 (J34). Hooker saw that if they were going to keep up, Rolls would have to step things up, and on his return, began development of the Nene (5,000 lbf thrust), and the Derwent (A scaled-down Nene that would fit in the Meteor. The Germans were still fighting with the BMW 003 and Juno 004 - their compressor and turbine aerodynamics were poor, with low compression ratios per stage in the compressors, high pressure drops in the turbines, very poor compressor stall margins, and low efficiencies - The lack of what would now be called Strategic Materials didn't help, but wasn't a factor in the innate design problems. There's a reason why the engines that came out of the 1944 U.S. - U.K. "race" - the J34, J33, J35, Nene, Derwent, and Goblin stayed in production through the 1950s (1980s, if you count the Soviet and Chinese developments of the VK-1 (Uprated Nene) turbojet of the MiG-15 and MiG-17. No, the U.S. and U.K didn't shove jets out into combat service - we weren't desperate, and losing the war.

[@andrewbrown6786]

Seem to recall the Americans were not in the race for the jet engine until the British Government handed over all of Whittles work - hence the numerous attempts by the Whittle family to get proper compensation from loss of income!

[@ColeyCool38]

I wouldn't say the US was in the race at all to be honest, they didn't start a jet project till 6months after the first British jet flew, and then again, whittle ideas were handed to the Americans by the British government to give them a start, so technically could say America was on a side line compared to the British and German projects at the first few years.

[@roberts9095]

Best comment I've read all day. A lot of people overhype Germany's jet technology because they were the first to shoehorn an unfinished prototype jet fighter into frontline service out of desperation. I've been wanting to delve deeper into the specific issues with the German jet designs, why they seemed inept to rectify them, and how long it would have taken them to iron out their problems had they not been at war.

[@stephenbarker5162]

A similar problem can be found with German tanks with both the Panther and Tiger tanks entering service before all technical issues had been sorted out. Tough luck on the crews that had to fight with them and iron out many of the problems.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

According to Eric Brown, the Me-262 was a decade ahead of anything the Allies had... the A4b rocket plane reached Mach 4 in 1945 (albeit unmanned) Germany's aerospace industry was lightyears ahead of the british... still developing obsolete centrifugal turbojets and did not begin construction of a supersonic aircraft wind tunnel at RAE Bedford until 1947!!!

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Metal fatigue was a well understood concept by the 1950s. It had been discovered in the 2nd half of the 1800s.

[@iansneddon2956]

Yes, and was a factor in every aircraft engine in the 20th century. The need for more engine power and reduced engine weight meant running up against the limitations of current materials tech. Pushing the limits comes at a price. As Thomas Sowell wisely said: there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Exhaustive testing conducted during the Americans Operation LUSTY confirmed that the Me-262 engines averaged TBOs of 55 hours.. better than many Allied piston engines... The term "scrap life" is deliberately misleading and biased, it implies that the engines were not overhauled in the same way as piston or modern jet engines are, which is simply not true, the turbine wheel and combustor liners could be quickly changed out, the engine rebalanced and returned to service. The quick-change feature of the Me-262's engines was a big advantage as was the lower cost, and shorter production time. the multi-fuel capability and the use of less refined jet fuel made from coal was a huge strategic plus.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Its important to note that Frank Whittle was not the first to patent, build a prototype or successfully flight test a working jet engine. Maxime Guillaume patented the jet aircraft engine in 1921, Whittles patent was invalid and allowed to expire. Hans von Ohain and Max Hahnn constructed the first prototype jet engine in 1934 and demonstrated in 1935, Ohain demonstrated his second prototype design (the Heinkel HeS-1) in 1937.

[@noahwail2444]

The sweped back wings had nothing to do with speed, but was done in order to chance the center of gravity, because the Jumo 004 engines weighted more than the engines originaly ment to be used. And no mention of the Heinkel He 280? It could have been in production long before the Meteor or the 262.

[@DataWaveTaGo]

The Heinkel He 280 had less room for development as a combat machine (bomber killer) though it might have been good in fighter vs fighter. The He 280 also had a series of power plant problems as well: However, engine development continued to be a thorn in the side of the He 280 program. During 1942, the RLM had ordered Heinkel to abandon work on both the HeS 8 and HeS 30 to focus on the HeS 011. As the HeS 011 was not expected to be available for some time, Heinkel selected the rival BMW 003 powerplant; however, this engine was also delayed. Accordingly, the second He 280 prototype was re-engined with Junkers Jumo 004s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_280#

[@wanderschlosser1857]

Well that's not really correct though. The center of gravity issue due to the heavier than anticipated engines was the reason the wings had to be redesigned. Sweep back wasn't the only option but chosen by Messerschmidt because of the positive effect on the max Mach number. By that time Germany was leading in swept wing research, having high speed wind tunnels just made for that purpose that no one else had. Messerschmidt knew about the effects, it wasn't a coincidence. Btw. the Me262 wasn't the only operational plane with (slightly) swept wings. The Me163 also had. Since I never heard the claim it was due to CoG issues on that one. You can be sure the reason were the high speed properties. And so it was on the 262, the CoG issues were just the initiation.

[@5co756]

​@@wanderschlosser1857Indeed , I don't know why people start spreading BS and myths about WW2 Germany . Messerschmitt got a wind tunnel and they know that swept wings are better for high speeds . There are reports of that .

[@onenote6619]

@@5co756 The issue is compressibility as local airflow approaches the speed of sound. Swept wings spread that effect rather than have it happen all at once. But you should bear in mind that the Me262 did not have swept wings - the leading edge, yes, but that was to balance engine weight.

[@5co756]

@@onenote6619 Why should they make swept wings to balance weight, if the 262 was nose heavy just put that damn wings further back . That doesn't make any sense dude , but again Messerschmitt had a wind tunnel and they tested this design . The looks of the Me262 was not a coincidence , they were no idiots back then .

[@stevennpitt]

The DH Comet was such a beautiful aircraft.

[@Jayjay-qe6um]

On 20 January 1945, four Meteors from 616 Squadron were moved to Melsbroek in Belgium and attached to the Second Tactical Air Force, just under three weeks after the Luftwaffe's surprise Unternehmen Bodenplatte attack on New Year's Day, which Melsbroek's RAF base, designated as Allied Advanced Landing Ground "B.58", had been struck by piston-engined fighters of JG 27 and JG 54. The 616 Squadron Meteor F.3s' initial purpose was to provide air defence for the airfield, but their pilots hoped that their presence might provoke the Luftwaffe into sending into sending Me 262 jets against them.

[@neilturner6749]

They should have considered themselves lucky in hindsight then because, reliability apart, the Me262 had performance far superior to the wartime Meteor variants!

[@JBils41]

Meteor was far better in the turn… in a dogfight the ME262 would have been a sitting duck… Only in a ‘boom and zoom’ ambush would the 262 have massively outperformed the Meteor…

[@tbas8741]

@@JBils41 Planes in War Thunder Don't Reflect the Real Planes Abilities.

[@mochaholic3039]

@@JBils41 Uh no. The wartime Meteors were sluggish, their general performance and engines simply couldn't match the Jumo 004's output as well the Me-262's overall performance. It was only after the war when Meteors had the chance to be improved and updated. Airframe, wings, avionics, better engines due to availability of better materials, did the Meteors start to approach Me-262 in terms of performance--barely. If the Me-262 had the same access to materials and comparable quality of lifetime updates, it'd still be ahead of the Meteor, but the Germans made do with the materials they had access to and still managed to produce the Me-262 with superior performance to the Meteor which had better access to superior sources of materials and knowledge base.

[@tomhenry897]

Yet none went into combat

[@tisFrancesfault]

Tbf, British jet engines were far superior. Germany gets the hype because it was desperate enough to activately deploy them.

[@commandbrawler9348]

bri`ish nein

[@typxxilps]

just another myth cause you could compare the production figures too. Winkle has often said that ME262 was far superior and he had flown it multiple times. Keep continuing the myth. It is like the tanks. German overengineering again as not usefull ? But the bovington museum has to call the biggest tank festival on earth TIGER days and not Mathilda, Churchill or Cromwell day Anyhow, remember who had saved Rolls Royce, Bentley and Mini, who had saved Aston Martin ? German companies or managers - while Jaguar and Landrover are now owned by an indian company. Seems to mirror how british industry went down while those german companies came out of the ruins to the top. At the end it paid out.

[@razgriz380]

@@typxxilps you really don't understand what you are talking about. You only see things in black and white. German jet engines were greatly inferior and had a poor life expectancy. Even when they were brand new they were already incapable of any further development and obsolete. While Winkle thought SOME aspects of the 262 were superior he wasn't universally praising the aircraft. The meteor would go on to have a great service life and improved substantially. Bovington call one show 'Tiger day' because there are many who fetishize the tank from movies and games. It carries weight from popluar culture more than being any great machine. But continue having a narrow view. Finally, many British marques have gone to overseas owners. Look at it from both ways. They are desirable enough to be wanted when they could easily have become defunct and they ended up being bought often because of mismanagement rather than inferiority.

[@Vladimirthetiny]

"UK engines of the period were superior" Really??? The reality of had more to do with the scarcity of raw materials at the time - necessary to increase the TBO. Centrifugal compressors are rarely seen these days - apart from on turboprops, model aircraft and APUs. Modern axial flow variations i.e. turbojets & fans are closer to the early German jets than the British ones IMHO 😂

[@tisFrancesfault]

@@typxxilps So this is failing to read what I wrote. In regards to the engines specifically, Even the British Radial compressor engines were lighter, more powerful, and considerably more reliable. And in further regards to axial flow, Britain again outclassed German production. In respect to the 262- Great flyer by all accounts - but that doesnt take away that it had crap engines, and design issues such as a weak undercarriage (prone to failure), and was hampered greatly by its poor armament (the 108s were okay cannon in other aircraft however), but the slow rate of fire and low velocity made it a terrible gun platform.

[@naardri]

The information of this video is very good. I do note that as a former film/video editor/producer I find the side and quarter images of the speaker to be horrid. Look at the camera and deliver information.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Right, also my point. Very annoying trend.

[@mollyfilms]

Really interesting to see Virgil from Thunderbirds tell this story. A very interesting and well made story at that.

[@RonJohn63]

1:36 More energy efficient? I'm dubious (especially for the early engines). 6:06 *From the beginning,* the Me-262 was thought of as a dual-role plane. Blaming Hitler was done after the fact.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The German company Krupp introduced the first high temperature, creep resistant Nickel alloy (P-193 Tinidur) in 1930 while Frank Whittle struggled with using inferior quality stainless steels like Browns 18/2 and REX 78, used primarily in cutlery and kitchen utensils. General Electric's Turbocharger division gave Rolls-Royce improved alloys like Hastaloy B and Nimonic which had been developed for GE by the Canadian company Inco. Britian was years behind Switzerland, Germany and America in gas turbine technology.

[@skyborne80]

It's crazy how similar modern jet airliners still look to the de Havilland comet over 70 years later! There are some differences, but the design language is still generally the same.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The de Havilland Comet is the worst design engineering failure in jet aviation history, its taught to engineering students as an example of "How not to build a jet airplane" the Boeing 707 is the first successful, airworthy jet airliner and it was the 707 that revolutionized air travel and the aircraft industry, all modern jet transports are model after the 707... it is the template for all of today's modern jets.

[@johnburns4017]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke doktorbimmer, now! now!

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@johnburns4017 The de Havilland Comet is the only jet airliner to have its certificate of airworthiness permanently revoked

[@rubotok3703]

​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke except it was only revoked on the first one, and entered back into service with the comet 2-3 a year or two later

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@rubotok3703 WRONG, Comet 2 and Comet 3 never received CAA Airworthiness Certification. Comet 4 was a completely redesigned aircraft that didn't enter service until 1958.

[@roberts9095]

The explanation of the differences between a propeller and a turbojet is a bit over simplified. Both a piston engine driving a prop and a turbojet rely on Newton's 3rd Law of Motion as an operating principle. A better way to describe it is that a propeller takes a relatively large mass of air and subjects it to a relatively small change in velocity, while a jet takes a relatively small mass of air and subjects it to a relatively large increase in velocity. It is also worth noting that both engines are heat engines, extracting chemical energy stored in the chemical bonds of hydrocarbon molecules in petroleum by subjecting this fuel to a combustion reaction and extracting the thermal expansion of the exhaust gases as kinetic energy. In the case of a piston engine, an Otto Cycle heat engine, fuel is ignited and burned in a cylinder, the thermal expansion imposes a force on a piston driving it down, the piston is connected to a crankshaft which converts the linear motion of the piston to rotary motion, the propeller is attached to the crankshaft and is what ultimately receives the energy created by the engine. A gas turbine on the other hand operates on the principle of the Brayton Cycle, continuously spraying fuel into a combustion chamber and burning it. The exhaust of a jet turbine is a continuous stream rather than a series of pulses like a piston engine. Turbojets are more efficient in the sense that their exhaust is what actually provides thrust rather than only being a byproduct of their operation as is the case in a piston engine.

[@knoll9812]

Lots of facts but don't think they add up to a conclusion. Propeller is problematic regardless of power source. Seriously inefficient at high air speeds

[@jimdavison4077]

@@knoll9812 "Seriously inefficient at high air speeds" You forget not all military operations are at high speeds which is why the propeller still has lots of use in modern war planes. Also some experimental aircraft have achieved impressive speeds with propellers. 576 mph which is about 50 mph faster than the 262 and just a little slower than the late war model of Meteor.

[@TomBall-r4d]

The Adolf Hitler meddled myth is just that a myth. Military aviation history covers this.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

so you say that 23,7 1943 never happend ! (:-)

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@michaelpielorz9283 Although it is a popular urban myth, the delays in production of the Me-262 were caused by the shortage of Nickel... not Hitler. A. H. was ultimately proven right in his assertions regarding jet fighters, all modern jet fighter are in fact multi-role interceptor-Attack aircraft with bombing capabilities... Even the P-51 Mustang carried a similar bomb load as the Me-262 and also had a dedicated bomber variant (A-36 Mustang)

[@petemaly8950]

_Of course we may be able to clear up a few misunderstandings._ *_Contrary to various copious & ubiquitous posts regarding accident losses of various UK aircraft._* *As they know, the Sea Vixen & Gloster Meteor were indeed very competent & beautiful aircraft.* _In fact the Meteor was the world's first aircraft to exceed 0.85 on the combined 2 year looks & capability scale for jet fighter aircraft._ _A rather superb Gloster Meteor was the world's first Turboprop aircraft in 1945 Gloster Meteors set gas turbine aero engine powered aircraft speed records in 1945 & 1946._ *Of course, British military aircraft at the time did not have unusually high accident losses rates.* *_For example_* De Havilland Vampire & Sea Vixen & Gloster Meteor accident losses were not high or unusual for fighter aircraft at the time. Non combat phase accident losses % of Aircraft built. The Canadair CL-44 was a turboprop airliner. *_Canadair CL-44 (ff 1959 ) 48%_* *Lockheed XF104 (ff 1954) 100%* *Lockheed P80 (ff 1944) 43%* *Lockheed F104 (ff 1954) 45%* *McDonnell FH Phantom (ff 1945) 35%* *_Gloster Meteor (ff 1943) 19.75%_* *_DH Vampire (ff 1943) 23%_* *_DH Sea Vixen (ff 1951) 33%_* *_Gloster Javelin (ff 1951) 20%_* A comparison of two particular particularly relevant militarily related aircraft. Gloster Meteor. Operational during WW2 UK & elsewhere - 100% successful combat kill ratio. 3950 Built. 70% did not have ejector seats. In service 1944. 830 accident losses. 436 accident loss fatalities. 20% accident losses. 11% accident loss Fatalities. Lockheed F104. 2578 Built. In service 1958, 14 years after the Meteor. All had ejector seats. 1100 accident losses. 425 accident loss fatalities. 43% accident losses. 17% accident loss Fatalities. Hope this helps. Cheers 😎👍

[@nickdanger3802]

Comet de Haviland had never mass produced an all metal aircraft. Vampire (single seat, single engine jet fighter) was made partly of plywood.

[@petemaly8950]

Comet - De Havilland had produced large numbers of all metal airframe aircraft before the Comet. The Vampire was originally an all metal airframe aircraft design that was later changed to a primarily metal construction airframe aircraft.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@petemaly8950 Name two

[@petemaly8950]

​​@@nickdanger3802 - they should also be aware & take note. In addition, the world's first all metal airframe construction airliner was built in England in the 1920s by Handley Page 👍 All metal stressed skin airframe construction aircraft by De Havilland. De Havilland Dove first flew 1945. De Havilland Flamingo ff 1938. The De Havilland Vampire. De Havilland Ghost Jet engine built by De Havilland of course. First flew 1943. Primarily metal construction airframe. Some triple layer hot moulded ply / lignen fibre, laminate cored composite construction. Pressurised & heated cockpit.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@petemaly8950 "mass produced" De Havilland Flamingo 14 built.

[@petemaly8950]

@@nickdanger3802 They probably have no idea what's involved with all metal construction aircraft. 1 or a million, it shouldn't make a difference. People build all metal construction aircraft in their sheds. The Flamingo was an all metal construction airliner. Of course there is absolutely no doubt that they did indeed build more than one Flamingo obviously. 🤣🤣🤣 They also built 200 Doves before 1950. They built 3600 Vampires that were mostly of metal construction, there are always parts of aircraft that are not necessarily going to be made of metal so indeed the fact that a De Havilland aircraft wasn't 100% metal construction is irrelevant. Indeed the world's first all metal construction airliner was built in England by Handley Page of course, it's to be expected obviously & indeed, the extensive & protracted testing program for the Comet was of course due to the fact that the Comet was the world's first airliner with a full fuselage length 8 psi pressurised passenger cabin which would result in the pressurisation stresses being significantly higher than the flying stress loads for that particular size of airliner using stressed skin metal construction. Oh yes, we shouldn't forget, the moulded triple layer cored laminate fibre reinforced plastic / resin composite construction techniques used for the Mosquito & Vampire was in fact the forerunner of glass reinforced plastic & carbon fibre composites. (Carbon fibre composite being nothing more than modified burnt toast & modified ancient stinky marine organisms) *C H E E R S* & *Toodle* -PIP- *_Old_* _Chap_

[@calimdonmorgul7206]

It is not as complicated as one might think, especially if common what if scenarios are being ignored in favour of taking various facts as well as factors influencing production or even design into account. It would have been interesting to see a more compartmentalised answer regarding single aspects, which proved to be groundbreaking. Be it aerodynamics metallurgy or engine design.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

*The Messerschmitt Me-262 was the first jet aircraft to enter squadron service on April 19th 1944..*

[@jetwrench2854]

Both types of engines found their niche deployments. The "English" centrifugal are more compact and excellent for turbine rotor craft and auxiliary power units. The "German" axial flow has proven to be far more useful in turbojet and turbofan powered high speed aircraft and electric power generation. Love 'em round engines!

[@kiereluurs1243]

'More compact'? You mean shorter, but much wider.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

centrifugal turbojets have no advantages

[@petemaly8950]

​​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke As per Whittles patents of 1930 for what would turn out to be the basic modern gas turbine aero engine, Centrifugal compressor & centrifugal / axial compressor gas turbine aero engines with straight through combusters & reverse flow combusters are still currently produced. Pratt & Whitney, Williams & Rolls Royce make examples which are used for turboprop airliners, business jets, helicopters & cruise missiles. Rolls Royce also make the high pressure turbine for some of the Williams engines. The Rolls Royce (Of England) Centrifugal compressor Nene engine was the most powerful & most reliable jet engine on the planet in 1944 being twice as powerful & much more than 15 times more reliable than anything being cobbled together anywhere else. The engine & it's successor variants such as the RR Tay would go on to be copied or built under licence in huge numbers in many countries including the US & Russia. Multi stage sequential stator rotor axial compressor & axial turbine technology had been demonstrated before 1900 by Parsons in England & were used as steam turbine power generation machinery. Internal combustion axial compressor gas turbine aero engines were being considered, researched & built in England since 1928.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Anyone familiar with WW2 Aviation technology knows that the Luftwaffe, RAF and the USAAF all had the same 100-hour minimum airworthiness certification requirement for adoption into service... The Jumo 109-004B easily met and exceeded the RLMs 100 PFTR for adoption into Luftwaffe service..

[@gwheregwhizz]

Compare with the Gladiator then reflect how technology advanced in under a decade.

[@iansneddon2956]

Compare the Meteor to the Gloster Gladiator - the frontline fighter that Gloster introduced less than a year before the Meteor. Everyone's tech was advancing quickly. Work was being done in the West on axial flow compressors for jet engines from the late 1930s, with the British ahead of the Americans, but materials tech wasn't up to the needs of such engines at the time. The advantage that put Germany ahead of the Allies wasn't having more scientists (because they didn't), but more desperate need and the corrupt nature of totalitarian regimes. The Me262 could be demonstrated to Hitler and go quickly into production with design defects and limitations. If Lockheed demonstrated a prototype exactly like the Me262 in 1942 it would have been sent back for much more work to deal with reliability, ease of maintenance and low engine life. Procurement boards kept half-baked prototypes from entering service in the West. It's not just aircraft. Look at the types of bombs available in 1941 when USA began their guided weapons program and look at 1944 and 1945 when (respectively) radar-guided and heat-seeking bombs entered service. The range of guided weapons under development in USA during the war was amazing. They never got their TV guided bomb up to reliability standards, but were ahead of the Germans and had a TV guided attack drone deployed into combat operations in 1944. The Kamikaze attacks brought a massive amount of funding/interest into radar guided air-to-air and surface-to-air rockets. The Germans were ahead on rocketry, but the Allies were ahead on guidance systems and proximity fuses. There was also a glide-bomb homing torpedo under development, with a rocket powered version as well .... I think Truk Lagoon was the inspiration for this program .... with the idea that attacking aircraft could just fly to the vicinity of this heavily defended base, and launch standoff rockets that would drop into the water in the target area after which they would detach a homing torpedo which would run on a pre-programmed route until detecting a ship to home in on and hit.

[@stevetheduck1425]

Compare the Gloster Meteor with more advanced twin planes from the same time period as the Gladiator. Such as the DeHavilland Comet racer and the Spitfire. In fact, the second British twin-jet design, later the Canberra, is from the same time scale as the Meteor, but was intended as a 'jet Mosquito', capable of all roles, from attack bomber to all-weather fighter. Oddly enough, the Meteor filled almost every role that exists, other than transport and paratroop-dropping.

[@iansneddon2956]

@@stevetheduck1425 I am not so knowledgeable about the jet aircraft from the late 40s into the 1950s, but understand the Gloster Meteor was a remarkable aircraft particularly in its upgraded post-war variants, for its reliability and ease of maintenance.

[@jimdavison4077]

@@iansneddon2956 "Compare the Meteor to the Gloster Gladiator - the frontline fighter that Gloster introduced less than a year before the Meteor. " The Glostor Gladiator first flew in 1930. The Glostor Meteor would first fly in 1943 some 13 years later. I think you got mixed up some where. By the war the Gladiator was pretty much obsolete with the Brits looking to rid themselves of the type. They were given to the Finns in their winter war, Norway used them along with the British who didn't want to risk Hurricanes or Spitfires in Norway and perhaps the most famous use of Gladiators in Malta. In total 12 Glostor Gladiators were pressed into service of the island and gave a good service for themselves. Considering they faced Italian biplane fighters as well it should shock nobody this battle produced the highest scoring biplane ace of the war..

[@franksizzllemann5628]

6:36 An example of a truly conflicted individual. And I think he would see the humor in that observation.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

He was quoting the Eric Brown

[@franz.isler799]

And who really won the jet race? There were 28 German JET ACES during WW2. The top 10 German aces flying the Mw 262 alone shot down 109 opposing allied planes. There were a total 542 Allied aircraft that were shot down by the Me 262 jets , although higher claims have been posted. No British fighter pilot ever shot down an Axis plane flying any British Jet aircraft during WW2 since they never DEPLOYED in time ANY British combat operational jet aircraft. And here IWM is putting out videos asking who really won the WW2 jet race? Barmy blokes have taken over the bloody museum!🤣😂😅

[@rittmeister3659]

yep, results speak for itself. Schneider trophies or any other trophies are outdated even before WW2 ended.

[@samting3694]

Heard the museum is being run by loonies now. The museum has been ruined. Hardly any artefacts compared with a few years ago, descriptions of items cannot be read because lighting is so dim, many conflicts have no mention, the layout makes no sense and the whole building is clinical and uninspiring. and now theyre turning out childish videos...shame.

[@nighttrain1236]

The Germans flew the Me 262 because they were desperate. The Allies weren't.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@nighttrain1236 German jet technology was more advanced and simply years ahead of the Allies...

[@franz.isler799]

@@nighttrain1236 It's pretty clear your museum IWM is getting desperate, its car's only got three wheels, and one's going flat and it bought a one-way ticket on the Disoriented Express.

[@raindeadly1]

In short: The British trying to be pioneers but failed during and after the war.

[@LessAiredvanU]

Germany had TWO operational jet warplanes by ear end, the other being the Arado 234 bomber / reconnaissance aircraft, again using the Jumo engine. Britain could have had a second jet aircraft, the de Haviland Vampire using the DH Goblin engine but unlike Gloster had other aircraft in production that took precedence. The Lockheed..? The Americans had a flight of aircraft in Italy, but they were quickly withdrawn as not service ready - and like the British had piston engined fighters capable of combating even the best German designs, with better in pre production.

[@andrewclayton4181]

The Germans were under pressure to try new weapons. The allies were winning with what they had.

[@mitchellcouchman1444]

3 aircraft, Heinkel He 162, was bottlenecked but the BMW 003 tho

[@bevinboulder5039]

I have to confess that I can't get an image of the first ME162 pictured as being made of multiple small pieces of metal held together with duct tape out of my mind. Happens every time I see those pictures.

[@robertmiller2173]

In my Opinion Hans Von Ohain was technically the inventor of the first Operational Jet Engine and Aircraft in that he proved his design etc had Utility when it was flown in the He 178 2 years prior to Whittles Engine in August 1939. Even Whittle himself acknowledged that Hans Von Ohain was a Co inventor of the Jets engine. What is interesting about Hans Von Ohain is all his patents that he filed under his name with the likes of LM after the war. Yes Hans was a major Trophy for American Aviation Post war with major “breakthrough” inventions. One that stood out to me at the time I was research his patents was Turboprop Helicopter engines, but there were many more. While Ohain engine didn’t have the operational life span of the Rolls Royce engines it could be changed out for a new engine in half an hour. The Germans lacked the Tungsten, Chrome, Titanium etc where Britain managed get hold of these in relative abundance. The Operational life of a Junkers Jumo 004 was 26 hours on average, which was the flying combat life expectancy of a British Empire Fighter Pilot in the Battle of Britain. !,200 Me 262 were made with some 300 seeing combat the rest we stuck on the ground waiting for Pilots and or fuel. A great book to read is on e written by Johnnie’s Steinhoff book the Last Chance; Steinhoff was a Me 262 Ace and his name has been given to the Luftwaffe Museum in Berlin. Steinhoff became the head of the Luftwaffe and represented the Luftwaffe in NATO. Steinhoff had 176 Victories in WW2 in Total. History has beeen somewhat rewritten by the Victor in this case but those that scratch deep enough can find the real truth. Personally I think it was great that the two Inventors acknowledge each other as Co Inventors which sort of puts the complexities aside in a way. Hans Von Ohain was a genius and it is worth researching his other achievements.😊

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Frank Whittle is only the fourth person to successfully demonstrate a working turbojet aircraft engine.

[@michaelburton3876]

As it said in the video, Whittle bench tested his unit months before Von Ohain. Does this mean that Von Ohain was the fifth person to demonstrate a turbojet?? Also, people are conveniently forgetting about the British Patents Office incident of 1934???

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@michaelburton3876 The video is clearly wrong. Hans von Ohain bench tested his first engine 2 years before Whittle. Hans von Ohain is the FIRST person to successfully demonstrate a turbojet aircraft engine in pure jet flight on August 27th 1939. Whittle was the FOURTH person on May15th, 1941. Maxime Guillame patented the turbojet engine. patent no. 534,801 (filed: 3 May 1921; issued: 13 January 1922) Whittle's patent was invalidated, and he allowed his British patent to expire that year rather than face a legal challenge. The notion the Whittle invented the jet engine is pure british propaganda myth and has been completely debunked by the historical evidence.

[@michaelburton3876]

Dr BMW. Whittle bench tested his unit on April 12th, 1937. This was a full 6 months before Von Ohain. This is a matter of historical record. If you don't want to believe the IWM and the legion of books that have been written about this, you could just go on the NASA and Smithysonian websites where you will find confirmation.

[@michaelburton3876]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Frank Whittle bench tested his unit in April 1937, six months before Von Ohain. Von Ohain was still in college when Whittle filed his patent, copies of which were sold to the German embassy in 1934. Copies of his patent were found all over Germany after the war and Gunderman, Von Ohain's number two, admitted that they referred to this whilst being debriefed by the Americans. Case closed

[@sumithjames1118]

On July 25, 1944, an Me 262 became the first jet airplane used in combat when it attacked a British photo-reconnaissance Mosquito flying over Munich. As a fighter, the German jet scored heavily against Allied bomber formations.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The first Allied aircraft destroyed by the Me-262.. the mosquito was heavily damaged by a single 30mm MK 108 round and crashed.

[@johnburns4017]

The unarmed Mosquito took evasive action when seeing the 262 causing a hatch plate to spring off. It landed in Italy.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@johnburns4017 The Mosquito was heavily damaged by a single hit and crashed attempting to make an emergency landing, the aircraft was destroyed and written off.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

​@@johnburns4017*The Mossie was destroyed, heavily damaged it crashed attempting an emergency landing.* *The british MEATBOX only killed british pilots!!*

[@petemaly8950]

​@@WilhelmKarsten Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Jurkzxoffenz etc and co - they should all take note with great awe & much wonder. *UPDATE BREAKING NEWS* British military aircraft at the time did not have unusually high accident losses rates. *For example* De Havilland Vampire & Sea Vixen & Gloster Meteor accident losses were not high or unusual for fighter aircraft at the time. Non combat phase accident losses % of Aircraft built. *Lockheed XF104 (ff 1954) 100%* *Vought F8 Crusader (ff 1955) 54%* *Lockheed P80 (ff 1944) 43%* *Lockheed F104 (ff 1954) 45%* *McDonnell FH Phantom (ff 1945) 35%* *_Gloster Meteor (ff 1943) 17%_* *_DH Vampire (ff 1943) 23%_* *_DH Sea Vixen (ff 1951) 33%_* *C H E E R S* The 262 was in fact virtually useless in most areas & of course it's engine lasted about 46 minutes on average before destroying itself arbitrarily. _Toodle_ *PIP* -Old- *_Chap_*

[@geordiedog1749]

I was going ranting about the 262 but instead just watch Hardthrashers video on it.

[@seavixen125]

Agreed

[@anthonyxuereb792]

The V1s were not crude but very clever weapons.

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

You can be both crudely built and smart at the same time.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

​@@RichardFraser-y9tThe V-1 was very clever and a extremely cost effective weapon system, so much so that the Americans copied it, manufactured and introduced it into service with its own military service.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

@@RichardFraser-y9t A crudely made watch will not function and neither will a sensitive intercontinental missile that has to fly itself.

[@senatuspopulusqueromanus5626]

It’s crazy to think we went from the the first flight in 1903 to jets in around 40 years to then around in 40 more years radar guided and IF guided AAM equipped super sonic jet fighters. there were people alive who saw all of this in one lifetime.

[@Poliss95]

Patrick Moore of Sky at Night fame also met Orville Wright and Wernher von Braun, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Yuri Gagarin.

[@onenote6619]

The Duncan Sandy's White Paper of 1957 predicted that manned aircraft were obsolete and missiles would do it all. It resulted in the cancellation of a great many projects and turned out to be utterly, horribly wrong.

[@mattwright2964]

​@@onenote6619 to be fair Sandy was mainly right but just far too early in predicting the change. Intelligent missiles are replacing most manned flight. Manned planes are becoming so expensive and sophisticated we have fewer of them and its too risky to lose them. They will become largely stealthy stand off platforms that fire or control missiles and/or loyal wingmen and absorb and direct intelligence as battlespace nodes.

[@theharper1]

At 12:08, during a reference to the Boeing 707, there's a B&W shot of an aircraft overhead. The wings are very straight and the contrails show three engines on each side. It's likely to be a B36 Peacemaker which had six props and piston engines as well as four turbojet engines. The 707 had swept wings and four jet engines.

[@centurymemes1208]

Red tails negs it. 😊

[@brianandjillianadamson5479]

The Me262 was always intended to be a fighter-bomber; that was not why it was delayed.

[@stephencollins1804]

The Germans flew the first jet powered aircraft, the He280 on October 27th 1939 & got the Me262 into service in 1944. Both had a top speed exceeding 500mph & their engines were of the turbojet type, the Meteor had axial flow engines. The Me262 was faster the the Meteor & both could perform all aerobatic maneuvers. They actually never met in combat, but the experts admitted that the Germans were far ahead of the Allies in the attainment of high speed flight, so a comparison of both jets is speculative at best.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The first jet powered aircraft is the Heinkel He-178 which flew on August 27th 1939.

[@luddite6239]

@stephencollins 1804 Not sure where you got the date of 27 October 1939 from - the He280 first flew, as a glider, in September 1940 and didn't take to the air under its own power until March 1941.

[@jimdavison4077]

@stephencollins1804 How you got so much wrong and still got 8 thumbs up is rather disturbing. The first jet aircraft to fly was the HE 178 as mentioned. The Meteor had not an Axial flow engine but a Centrifugal engine although it was test flown with the Metrovick Axial it was never produced as such. Also the Me 262 never really developed after getting it's series produced engine in the fall of 1944. The Meteor however had many updates from introduction in July 44 to the wars end. The Meteor that went to Belgium in Dec 1944 was the F3 which had the same performance as the 262, 515 mph top speed. It was then fitted with the longer engine nacelles and tear drop canopy which gave it another 75 mph over the 262. So now how could the 262 out perform the Meteor had they ever gotten into combat? Also the big grey elephant in the room the Mk 108 low velocity cannons became more of a liability as speeds increased.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@jimdavison4077 The Me-262 had a top speed of 560 mph. But more important was its blistering continuous cruising speed of 465 mph and its diving speed of 642 mph. the 4x 30 mm cannons were the most powerful and effective standard gun package of any WW2 fighter, a single 85 grams exploding shell could blow the wing or the tail off the B-17 and completely disintegrate a Spitfire or P-51. The Me-262 was highly successful in combat, 26 Luftwaffe pilots scored Ace or better shooting down over 550 Allied aircraft. Kurt Welter remains the highest scoring Jet Ace in History. The Gloster Meatbox only killed british pilots during WW2.

[@VK6AB-]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Some of your comments are inaccurate for example only 10 - 15 F3 were fitted with the Wellard engine, the remainder were fitted with the Derwent engine. An F3 with this engine attained over 600MPH in 1945. The Meteor was held back from combat deliberately and primarily used for rapid development of engines and overall performance. The F4 went on to achieve a top speed of 616MPH in 1946. Unlike the ME262 the Meteor engines had reasonable service lives and variants of the Meteor were produced and in service until the early-mid 1960s. A key metric in combat of any type is "combat availability" if the quality is so poor you have few units available then that particular unit becomes combat ineffective - this was the case with the 262 and many later german tanks. Logistics and strategy trump tactics and combat effectiveness trumps combat ineffectiveness. Germany was poor at logistics, strategy and combat effectiveness - hence they lost WWII.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Anyone familiar with WW2 Aviation technology knows that the Luftwaffe, RAF and the USAAF all had the same 100-hour minimum airworthiness certification requirement for adoption into service...

[@crystaldbj]

If jet aircraft had really been needed by the Allies in WWII, the usual mind/muscle partnership that characterized British and American technological developments would probably have happened yet again, as had happened with Radar, Sonar, the Mustang, innovations in aircraft carriers etc. etc. The Brits developed the cutting edge technology, the Americans 'commercialized' it on a large scale.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Britian always lagged behind America, Germany and France in aviation technology... There were only two winners in WW2, britian was not one of them. Insert angry brit troll comments below

[@johnburns4017]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke docktobimmer, you have been told about telling fibs.

[@michaelburton3876]

​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Yet more fantasy. When do you break up for half term??

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@johnburns4017 Just the facts here lad, Please name a british jet still in production in the UK?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@michaelburton3876 Only british jets break up... in fact they all had a disturbing tendency to suffer catastrophic structural failures in-flight. the Gloster Meatbox only killed brit pilots during WW2.

[@onenote6619]

Axial flow was clearly the way to go, but in the early engines centrifugal flow was more reliable. A thing not often mentioned is that German jets were useful in WW2 because they used fuel requiring substantially less refinement - the Luftwaffe was very much starved for fuel in the latter stages of the war.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The top Korean war MiG 15 and Grumman Panther used almost identical centrifugal flow engines, nazi engines were a dead end, none were successfully developed.

[@onenote6619]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Every modern jet engine is axial flow. What is your point? Centrifugal flow was reliable at the lower end of the tech, which Whittle recognised. Once the tech developed, axial flow was the clear winner.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

@@onenote6619 …. every …. apart from industrial, helicopter and turboprop. Plenty of modern engines have one or more centrifugal stages. Several countries tried to improve the nazi Junkers and BMW engines but they all failed. Metropolitan-Vickers had axial flow engines flying in 1943 but the centrifugal design was best for getting a usefully reliable engine ‘tomorrow’.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

No evidence to support claims that centrifugal turbojets were more reliable... only that they were inferior to Axial engines in performance which is why Germany abandoned them so quickly.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 The BMW 003 series is still in production and service, it powered the first European Mach 2 interceptor

[@PascalChauvet-v6j]

The Comet 1 flying further than most piston airliners??? Comet 1 range 1,300 nmi Douglas DC-6 3,983 nmi Why does Imperial War Museum make such completely avoidable and embarrassing mistakes???

[@BV-fr8bf]

Well balanced evaluation, thank you.

[@rogerrees9845]

Another great presentation.... Thank you IWM.... And the post war British Government “gave" the Whittle jet engine plans to Russia who's Migs were used in Korea against Allied forces.... Brilliant !!!!! Roger.... Pembrokeshire

[@JohnJones-cp4wh]

The Attlee government didn`t `give` the engine to Russia, it was traded for food that we were seriously in need of.

[@paulmasterson386]

@@JohnJones-cp4whso after years of getting food from the empire and America we suddenly needed it from the USSR? I think it was more that the labour government were desperate to grovel to Stalin, hence their refusal to allow the heroic Poles to march in the victory parade.

[@JohnJones-cp4wh]

@@paulmasterson386 Maybe I should put it into perspective, the country under the Attlee government was cash strapped, hence the big devaluation of the pound in 1949, and money had to be raised from somewhere, after the war there was virtually nothing that could be used to raise funds, pretty most of our industrial capacity was worn out. Stafford Cripps, the Chancellor, was a Communist at heart, having been also an Ambassador in Moscow in the early years of the war, so maybe that was part of the reason for the transaction.

[@sassonp8644]

One more genius,Arhip Lulka- in1939 took a patent. Lo bi-pass axial engine in San Petersburg.

[@petemaly8950]

Everyone knows the RAF, USAF & THE Luftwaffe did not have the same standards for engine reliabillity dyring WW2. While the Jumo 004 was accepted into service with an average life of 46 minutes so no overhaul possible or required, just put a new engine in, in England De Havilland were getting a time between overhaul of 1000 hours for their gas turbine aero engines.

[@EB-ss3or]

The original design of the Me-262 did not have swept wings to improve performance. And the Me-262 did not benefit much from the 18.5 degree sweep that implemented to shift CG.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

That is a completely false urban myth that is derived from a single, highly dubious source which incorrectly attributes the _Projekt 1070_ as the original design for the Me-262. The Me-262 was developed from _Projekt 1065_ which clearly had swept wings from inception. This false myth also contradicts all the historical evidence and crumbles upon the slightest scrutiny, it is the absolute worst kind of deliberately biased misinformation. The Me-262 was tested and flown with 1, 2 and 3 engines, 3 different types of engine, 9 different engine models from different manufacturers WITH NO CHANGE in wing sweep angle.

[@gort8203]

True. On Feb 8 1940 there was a meeting on 262 project definition and construction status. Woldemar Voight, *head of the M262 design team*, stated in a later interview that that the reason for choosing the straight wing had nothing to do with high-speed aerodynamics: “BWM soon ascertained that is turbojet would be still larger and appreciably heavier than the company’s least sanguine revised calculations had suggested, thus presenting us with serious centre of gravity problems. Aircraft development had progressed too far for us to dramatically revise its layout and we were forced to introduce what we considered a somewhat inelegant ‘fix’ in the form of *swept outer wing panels* to resolve the CG difficulties presented by the heavier engines. Thus, it was to be purely fortuitous that the Me262 was to become the world first operational fighter featuring wing sweepback; a radical departure that, at this stage at least, *reflected no attempt to reduce the effects of compressibility*.”

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@gort8203 Your ridiculous Alliboo myth defies all logic. Why would you redesign the wing to change the CoG? When you have a wing mounted jet engine and can easily shift the position of the engine fore and aft on the wing? Adolf Busemann designed Projekt 1065 in the worlds only supersonic aircraft wind tunnel to speeds up to Mach 1.4... the Me-262 has the highest critical Mach number of any WW2 aircraft... to suggest this was mere coincidence is completely infantile and completely destroys your credibility.

[@jimdavison4077]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke "Why would you redesign the wing to change the CoG? Because it's less work than changing the entire airframe of the aircraft. The 262 has a lower degree of wing sweep than the 1936 designed Spitfire. You might want to get new material as the crowd getting restless with the same old BS.Not one documents mentions speed as a reason for changing the wing shape, they all say the same thing that it was to regain the netter of gravity without a long costly entire redesign. It's like why the wings on some aircraft are tilted to give better clearance for the landing gear. Most times the simplest solution to a problem is the best and fastest way to solve it. How was the 262 ever going to reach any where near compression problems with under 2000 pounds thrust. You do know about the same number of 262's were lost because of landing gear issues as were shot down? Together that adds up to about 300 aircraft. Given if the 262 downed a couple hundreds enemy aircraft that would be good.

[@gort8203]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke How many times do I have to reply to this question? They did not redesign the wing, they merely changed the angle of its outer panel. That was a lot quicker than redesigning the the airplane to move the position of the wing on the fuselage. The head of the design team stated this himself. You understand nothing about airplanes, and you ignore any fact that does not fit your delusional notions.

[@terryoneil6209]

3 things never mentiond, in no paticular order 1 to be accepted into milliatry service an engine had to pass the 100 hour test. 2 swept wings are not required at sub mach speeds. 3 the theory of atom migration at high temps would not be fully understood until the electron microscope appeared making the axial jet viable, to say that Mr Whittle was not aware of the axial jet is wrong. please refer to books by Stanley Hooker for early jet engine development and Teddy Petter for aircraft designe.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Axial turbojets were viable in 1940... Britain simply didn't have the technology until 1950. Whittle never attempted to build an axial compressor turbojet, as AA Griffiths pointed out after Whittle was exposed for plagiarism, Whittle did not have any fundamental understanding of how axial compressors worked. whittle would abandon his 1930 patent design completely. the W.U. engine was constructed using a centrifugal furnace blower salvaged from an iron foundry and driven by a 4-cylinder Austin Dixie automobile engine.

[@gort8203]

swept wings are not required at sub mach speeds." Swept wings are not required at supersonic speed, where all flow is supersonic. The F-104 had straight wings and it went Mach 2. Swept wings are actually more important for high speed subsonic flight, which is why all modern airliners all have them. They increase the critical Mach number at which the normal shock wave begins to form and disrupt airflow.

[@ToniPfau]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke I seriously doubt that Whittle didn't have a fundamental understanding of axial compressors. Both a compressor and the entire jet engine design are easily understood by a decent understanding of Bernoulli's equation, an understanding that Whittle clearly had. Perhaps Whittle struggled with the aerodynamics of an axial flow compressor, but to suggest he didn't have a fundamental understanding of them is foolish.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@ToniPfau A.A Griffiths proved Whittle didn't understand axial compressors when he exposed him for plagiarizing his own work, a paper published in 1926 and made available to Whittle while he attended Cranwell. Whittle himself abandoned with 1930 patent design and stuck with the simpler, less efficient centrifugal compressor. In fact, Whittle never designed any compressor himself, the W.U. used an old furnace blower salvaged from the basement of the abandoned iron foundry where Whittle had set-up his workshop. Subsequent engines used compressors supplied by outside contractors mainly Rolls-Royce and designed by Stanley Hooker. Whittle would never build any engine with a axial compressor... or achieve flightworthiness certification requirements for RAF service, his engines were too unreliable.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@gort8203 The F-104 had wings swept to 18 degs.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

*We know today in hindsight that the British centrifugal type engines were an evolutionary dead-end concept that was obsolete upon introduction.* *Today, all jet aircraft use German Axial Compressors.*

[@davidgreenland9136]

you totally failed to mention britons other jet fighter .first flown later 1943 . what about the De Haverland Vampire .yes it didnt enter squadron service til late 45 but still flown befor the volkjager

[@calimdonmorgul7206]

Likely since it was a post war jet in effect.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Vampire was a postwar jet

[@stevetheduck1425]

Flew in 1943, which is in-war.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@stevetheduck1425 The de Havilland Vampire did not enter RAF service until 1946... the plane completely missed the war and arrived after the war ended.

[@40hup]

Did the volksjaeger ever fly? The first Jet engine plane that actually flew was the Heinkel He 178, flown in 1939 - years before any britsh jet took of the ground, or even before any airworthy jetengine was available in the UK.

[@johnshepherd9676]

The ME 262 swept wing was not about aerodynamic efficiency. The original design was straight winged but the center of gravity created a serious stability problem which Willi Messerschmitt corrected by sweeping the wing.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

That is a completely false urban myth, it is derived from a single, highly dubious source which incorrectly attributes the Projekt 1070 as the original design for the Me-262. The Me-262 was developed from Projekt 1065 which clearly had swept wings from inception and was wind tunnel tested to speeds up to Mach 1.4. This false myth also contradicts all the historical evidence and crumbles upon the slightest scrutiny, it is the absolute worst kind of deliberately biased misinformation. The Me-262 was tested and flown with 1, 2 and 3 engines, 3 different types of engine, 9 different engine models from different manufacturers WITH NO CHANGE in wing sweep angle.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

a good myth will never die . In 1935 the germans invited aero engeneers to a lecture of the benefits of swept wings. the british intention : if it is german we do not need it kept them away. because of that even the Comet had straight wings.

[@gort8203]

On Feb 8 1940 there was a meeting on 262 project definition and construction status. Woldemar Voight, *head of the M262 design team*, stated in a later interview that that the reason for choosing the straight wing had nothing to do with high-speed aerodynamics: “BWM soon ascertained that is turbojet would be still larger and appreciably heavier than the company’s least sanguine revised calculations had suggested, thus presenting us with serious centre of gravity problems. Aircraft development had progressed too far for us to dramatically revise its layout and we were forced to introduce what we considered a somewhat inelegant ‘fix’ in the form of *swept outer wing panels* to resolve the CG difficulties presented by the heavier engines. Thus, it was to be purely fortuitous that the Me262 was to become the world first operational fighter featuring wing sweepback; a radical departure that, at this stage at least, *reflected no attempt to reduce the effects of compressibility*. Sharp's book contains documents illustrating that only the outer wing panels were swept to resolve this issue. It was much later that it was decided to extend the leading edge of the inboard panels to match the same minor sweepback angle. Much later one they did experiment with more highly swept wings on the 262 wind tunnel models to explore their characteristic, but that was use of the 262 designs as a base for research that had nothing to do with the design of the 262 then in production.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@gort8203 Here Again, false and misleading information which stems from deliberate bias and propaganda. Confusion regarding the _Projekt 1070_ is completely unrelated to the Messerschmitt Me-262. _Projekt 1065_ was developed from inception with all swept control surfaces and was wind tunnel tested to speeds up to Mach 1.4 the final design wing sweep angle was the result of the optimum wing stall / landing speed and is not related in any way to the aircrafts CoG or the weight of the engines... the CoG could be easily adjusted by moving the engines fore and aft on the wing.

[@gort8203]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke You continue to ignore the documented facts in favor of your delusional fantasy. Woldemar Voight, head of the M262 design team, stated that the reason for choosing the straight wing had nothing to do with high-speed aerodynamics: “BWM soon ascertained that is turbojet would be still larger and appreciably heavier than the company’s least sanguine revised calculations had suggested, thus presenting us with serious centre of gravity problems. Aircraft development had progressed too far for us to dramatically revise its layout and we were forced to introduce what we considered a somewhat inelegant ‘fix’ in the form of swept outer wing panels to resolve the CG difficulties presented by the heavier engines. Thus, it was to be purely fortuitous that the Me262 was to become the world's first operational fighter featuring wing sweepback; a radical departure that, at this stage at least, reflected no attempt to reduce the effects of compressibility.” Dan Sharp's book contains documents illustrating how only the outer wing panels were swept to resolve this issue. It was much later that it was decided to extend the leading edge of the inboard panels to match the same minor sweepback angle. Much later on they there were experiments exploring the characteristics of more highly swept wings on the 262 wind tunnel models, but that was use of the 262 design as a base for research that had nothing to do with the design of the 262 then in production.

[@Mrdadeoo]

ME 262.....combat service.....end of story

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

26 Messerschmitt Me-262 pilots scored ace or higher, shooting down over 550 Allied aircraft. Kurt Welter remains the highest scoring Jet Ace in history. the Gloster Meatbox however only killed british pilots during the war... and another 450 died after 1947.

[@Ghost1828]

nice joke. you think them scoring aces is special? they didn’t rotate their pilots. one aircraft was actually good and reliable and one was a waste of recourses that further contributed to the end of Germany. also interesting how one design was perused and one left behind

[@Ghost1828]

and saying the meteor killed its pilots? the 262 melted its pilots

[@Ghost1828]

completely clueless wheraboo take as usual

[@Ghost1828]

also very mis represented stats especially with data from literal nazi propaganda 😂😂

[@petemaly8950]

​​​@WilhelmKarsten *_Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Jurkzxoffenz etc and co - they should all note well with great awe & much reverence._* The turbojets used for the Bow-wing ( see B-47 wing folding incidents) were of course based on the Metrovik UK f2/3 gas turbine aero engine work which first ran in 1943, was flight certified but not required at the time, development of more powerful engines continued. The TG-100A which led to the j35 etc benefited from the Anglo/American technology exchange with one of its designers, Glenn Warren, stating that one of the most important British contributions was the concept of multiple combustion cans. *We can clearly see that Centrifugal compressor gas turbine aero engines are currently produced.* *_In 1944 the centrifugal compressor RR Nene engine was of course the most powerful & most reliable gas turbine aero engine on the planet. Versions of the Engine would of course be produced in the US for use in US built jet fighters for the next 10 years & of course it was built in Russia for Mig 15 & Mig 19 aircraft._* _Whittle was the first to conceptualise & patent a number of versions of the gas turbine aero engine including axial compressor, centrifugal compressor, reheat & turboprop & various types of turbofan arrangements. Whittle was the first to demonstrate the basic Whittle pure gas turbine aero engine in 1937 of course._ *The Pratt & Whitney PW-200 range of engines for example are a Whittle engine including reverse flow combusters of course, they are also a version of all current internal combustion gas turbine aero engines, differences being compressor type, combuster configuration & fan configuration.* _The gas turbine was of course invented before 1800 in England. Work on axial compressor turbojet engines began in England before 1930._ *_The world's first multi stage sequential rotor stator bladed axial turbine & axial compressor having of course been first produced in England around or before 1900. Of course it is factually entirely correct that the same basic axial turbine & axial compressor technology for example is used in both Rankine & Brayton cycle turbomachinery._* *It is factually indisputable that C A Parsons manufactured the world's first axial turbine power generation turbomachinery machinery & axial turbine ship propulsion turbomachinery before 1900.* _The exceptional & excellent W & J Galloway & Sons of course would be a good example of a company making steam engines & their boilers at the time during the late 1800s the world's first steam engines of course having been constructed in England in previous centuries, steam engines are not axial turbine power generation turbomachinery utilising axial turbine gas turbine & axial compressor technology in power generation & propulsion machinery, W & J Galloway & Sons did not involve themselves with axial turbines or axial compressors. A steam engine is of course a piston engine. The world's first steam engines being of course produced in England before 1800._ *The axial multi stage sequential rotor stator turbine of course exists in its own right independently where ever & how ever it is utilised including when used as a Dehavilland, Halford, Metrovik, Armstrong Siddeley, Bristol, Power Jets or Rolls Royce Gas turbine aero engine or ship propulsion gas turbine or for example a cruise missile engine or as power generation turbomachinery using Brayton or Rankine cycle turbomachinery configurations.* _The said axial turbine being produced for the first time in the world in England before 1900._ *_There is of course no doubt that the world's first basic axial compressor jet engine arrangement was manufactured in England before 1937 work having started before 1930._* *It is factually correct that there are currently no instances of jet aircraft powered by Jumo engines or German technology engines, no US aircraft were powered by German jet engine technology. Such ridiculously shoddy extremely short life engines with sheet steel combusters & turbine blades would not under any circumstances have achieved US or UK certification* The Nickel super alloys which are primarily high Nickel content & low iron content were developed around 1940 in Hereford England for turbine blade use in internal combustion gas turbine aero engines. At the time they were available nowhere else. Germany & the US would attempt to use stainless steels, mostly iron with high nickel or chrome content, the US GE turbocharger division of course didn't need anything better for piston engine turbochargers for example. Germany had plenty of Nickel but hadn't figured out the why & how of Nickel super alloys. *_Of course All 1940s & 1950s US & UK, Russian, French / other countries built jet aircraft using technology from the UK based on the early Whittle engines & work done at the RAE & Metrovik up to 1943._* Indeed there is no doubt that all failed German attempts were of course half soaked copies of UK technology using partial info obtained from UK industry & academia. *_Rolls Royce of England & England's Shires & Lands now has 2 wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany one of which handles routine work on smaller 2 shaft engines & a wholly owned subsidiary in the US that was previously Allison of course._* *C H E E R S* & *Toodle* *-PIP-* *_Old_* *CHAPs* 😎👍 xcxvvvcxvvxzxccxcbv . .... ..... ...... .. ....... xcxcxccxcvcccvcvxcx . ... . .... ...... . ... .. ..

[@stewartellinson8846]

I love the way that the video tells you it's complicated and explains why, but the comments section is full of people ignoring the complexity of the history with their prejudices picked up from KZbin.

[@Poliss95]

Or the comments section could be full of people who wonder why the IWMs research is so sloppy these days. It never used to be like that. You only have to look at The World at War from the 60s to see how good they used to be.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

*We know today in hindsight that the British centrifugal type engines were an evolutionary dead-end concept that was obsolete upon introduction.* *Today, all jet aircraft use German Axial Compressors..*

[@chunkblaster]

Oops all misinformation. Dissapointing to see a museum channel mess up on allot of the small but significant details

[@petemaly8950]

The video author hasn't got a clue unfortunately. Never mind. Some examples, these aren't the only errors. 1:36 The ability of a turbojet or gas turbine aero engine powered aircraft to travel significantly faster (& at higher altitude but not mentioned) than a propeller & piston engine aircraft has nothing to do with energy efficiency (miles per fuel gallon etc). 1:23 Its not the case that a propeller only pulls an aircraft & a turbojet only pushes. For example, there's such a thing as an aircraft with a pusher prop. Its more complex than that but that's the basic idea. 2:03 Frank Whittles first patent was granted in 1930. 4:20 No, the axial compressor was not thought up in Germany for gas turbine aero engine use. In fact the multi stage sequential rotor stator axial compressor & similar axial turbine had been around since before 1900 having been created by Parsons of Ireland & North England for axial turbine power generation turbomachinery. The entire industrial world knew about the work of Parsons. Parsons licenced the technology to Brown Boveri & others on very generous terms. Whittles patents from 1930 onwards included patents for combined axial plus centrifugal compressor gas turbine aero engines. Whittle style centrifugal compressor internal combustion gas turbine aero engines using reverse flow combusters are currently manufactured & have been manufactured since 1938. Axial compressor internal combustion gas turbine aero engine work had been ongoing in England from 1927. 1:27 The process of ejecting a fast moving stream of gas from the tailpipe doesn't produce thrust, overall the rear parts of the engine being mostly the turbine & tailpipe actually cause rearwards pointing thrust which opposes the forward thrust being created forwards of the turbine section. 11:38 Metal fatigue was not an unknown before 1949 & De Havilland engineers knew everything there was to know about metal fatigue at the time the Comet was designed. *C H E E R S* & *Toodle* *-PIP-* *_Old_* *CHAPs* 😎 & Indeed 👍 Obviously . ....... ..... ........ .... cxcxcxcccbvvv vvv.

[@chrisgibson5267]

The Meteor is the clear winner in at least two important categories that never seem to be discussed in these forums. It was the first jet to enter military service that wasn't partially built by slave labourers who frequently died due to the appalling conditions they were forced to live and work in. Secondly, it was the first jet to enter service that wasn't designed to defend a regime that was heavily engaged at that time in the genocide of the Jewish population of Europe and Eurasia (and sundry other minorities who they hated) . Of course the bloody wehraboos can disagree, but they know I'm right. Hardthasher forever! I'll see myself out.....

[@johnvanzo9543]

As opposed to the high moral character of the British Empire?

[@raypurchase801]

@@johnvanzo9543 Every part of the world which functions properly today does so because of British influence. To see this for yourself, compare the Spanish-speaking world with the Anglosphere. Be grateful the Ottoman Turks, Germans, Japanese, Chinese or Spanish didn't get an empire as big.

[@raypurchase801]

Lots of jealous people will disagree. But you're wholly correct.

[@andidubya3840]

@@johnvanzo9543 Hitler criticised the Brits for being too soft on their colonies so yes, in this case yes.

[@bloke755]

Better scrap your computer , throw away your smartphone , strip off your branded expensive clothes , seeing as these products have a lot in common with the Me 262 as regards slave labor ......

[@peterturnham5134]

As a young man, for work I spent a day with Paddy Lilbourne who was the ex squadron leader of one of the first Meteor squadrons. I imagined that the first jets were ferocious beasts. Well he set me right. The Meteor to him was smooth a silk, beutiful to fly, not instant accelleration but a build up.. What killed ME262 was a major engine rebuild after 4 hours flying. I have never seen equivalent figures for the Meteoir. Does anyone know?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Please refrain from posting lies and false information regarding this topic.

[@stevetheduck1425]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Which topic? I don't want to break any of your laws accidentally. It's well known in Britain that the Meteor, in comparison to rapidly-accelerating piston engines, took many seconds to reach full power. There are even movies, such as 'The Sound Barrier', that show jets starting a take-off roll very slowly, but continuing to accelerate the whole length of a long runway. Also, as late as the 1980s, Canberra aircraft had problems keeping both jet engines in sync, to open the throttles often meant one engine would give more thrust than the other, then the slower would catch up with the faster, causing control problems. A Canberra crashed on take-off for this very reason. The problem was never fully solved, and was only a problem because the two engines were so far apart. Modern military jets usually have their engines close together, while civilian airliners have them wide apart, a problem with control at slow speeds, even today.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@stevetheduck1425 Generally the Gloster 'Meatbox' and its notorious reputation as the worst jet aircraft in RAF history. And more specifically the topic of aircraft engine overhaul intervals, aka TBOs. All jet engines accelerate slowly, even modern ones equipped with FADEC, particularly from flight idle rpm. this is caused by the dampening effect of the compressor which consumes roughly 70% of the entire power output of the turbine and because if fuel is introduced to quickly, it will cause an damaging increase in EGT due to insufficient core engine and bypass airflows.

[@stevetheduck1425]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke The topic was the number of pilots killed by a jet in it's nearly 50-year service life, I take it? The Meteor was still killing pilots in the 1980s, the one I know is the crash of the Vintage Pair of jets at the Biggin Hill air show. The Me-262 had about four years to kill pilots, between it's service entry and when the Czech air force retired their Me-262s. Four years against fifty.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@stevetheduck1425 But the Me-262 killed many Allied pilots in combat... shooting down over 550 Allied aircraft something the Meatbox could not, it only killed british pilots during WW2.

[@thecursed01]

the germans. because their jet looks amazing and the british one looks as good as british food tastes.

[@ltcterry2006]

I'd love to see a video on the restoration of the He-162. Is this the one that was hanging from the ceiling in the Lambeth Road Museum?

[@paulmasterson386]

Eric Brown flew both the Meteor and the 262. He considered the 262 the superior aircraft as it lacked the meteors problem of directional snaking, meaning the 262 was a more stable gun platform. Adolf Galland also came to the same conclusion,and said the ideal fighter would have been the 262 with British engines.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Galland was not an expereinced test pilot like Brown... although he was a gifted pilot he was more talented as a natural politician, he was very good at talking out of both sides of his mouth depending on who was in the room. Tests conducted by the Americans during Operation Lusty would confirm the superiority of the German engines and German jet engineers were brought to America to develop the next generation of engines and give America the lead in jets they still hold today.

[@UTTPCHICKENNUGGET]

@@paulmasterson386 no one said anything about British engine

[@WilhelmKarsten]

*The Messerschmitt Me-262 was the first jet aircraft to enter squadron service on April 19th 1944.*

[@birdie2580]

As far as operational jets go Britain won. The meteor was in service and doing its job first, even if that job was home defence and not attacking Germany. We had plenty of capable propellor aircraft that could be sent to Germany. Why use the Metero when it wasn't needed and its speed was better suited to shooting down V1s, It was not worth the risk. The big question is how did the Germans have a jet "ready" in Spring and skies full of B17s by day and Lancaster by night but not get a kill till October! Simple it wasn't ready and the claim was Nazi propaganda

[@jordansmith4040]

Won? Won what? I seem to recall there was a war on, so how does it matter when it entered service if it saw such limited use?

[@ToaArcan]

@@jordansmith4040 Well, the topic at hand was the race for an operational jet fighter. Britain got theirs into service first, therefore, they won said race. While they _did_ deploy it more conservatively than the Germans did their jets, it didn't matter. The Meteor did its job well, the German jets failed to stymie the saturating bombing campaigns conducted by the RAF and the USAF (as said in the top comment, Lancasters at night, B-17s in the day, plus Mosquitoes whenever they damn well pleased), and they lost the war.

[@daniel_lucio]

Britain fanboy detected

[@Poliss95]

What's the point of a weapon that isn't going to be used against the enemy?

[@paulsteier8146]

Quite simply it wasn't needed. By the time the Me262 came into use the war was won. It was a matter of when not if. The Me262 was the superior aircraft but the Luftwaffe couldn't field enough to impact the US day bombing raids and after the initial shock the USAAF figured out that if they hung around the Luftwaffe airfields they could pick the jets off as they landed. Simply, by early 45 there was no need for the RAF to rush out their shiny new fighter at the risk of the Germans capturing one. Necessity is the mother of invention and the need wasn't there

[@petemaly8950]

The video author hasn't got a clue unfortunately. Never mind. 1:23 Its not the case that a propeller pulls an aircraft & a turbojet pushes. For example, theres such a thing as an aircraft with a pusher prop. Its more complex than that but that's the basic idea. 1:37 The ability of a turbojet or gas turbine aero engine powered aircraft to travel significantly faster (& at higher altitude but not mentioned) than a propeller & piston engine aircraft has nothing to do with energy efficiency. 2:04 Frank Whittle's first patent was granted in 1930, not 1932. 4:20 No, the axial compressor was not thought up in Germany for gas turbine aero engine use. In fact the multi stage sequential rotor stator axial compressor & similar axial turbine had been around since before 1900 having been created by Parsons of Ireland & North England for axial turbine power generation turbomachinery. The entire industrial world knew about the work of Parsons. Parsons licenced the technology to Brown Boveri & others on very generous terms. Whittles patents from 1930 onwards included patents for combined axial plus centrifugal compressor gas turbine aero engines. Whittle style centrifugal compressor internal combustion gas turbine aero engines using reverse flow combusters are currently manufactured & have been manufactured since 1938. Axial compressor internal combustion gas turbine aero engine work had been ongoing in England from 1927. 1:27 the process of ejecting a fast moving stream of gas from the tailpipe doesn't produce thrust, overall the rear parts of the engine being mostly the turbine & tailpipe actually cause rearwards pointing thrust which opposes the forward thrust being created forwards of the turbine section. 11:38 Metal fatigue was not an unknown before 1949 & De Havilland engineers knew everything there was to know about metal fatigue at the time the Comet was designed. *C H E E R S* & *Toodle* *-PIP-* *_Old_* *CHAPs* 😎👍 . ...... ....... . .... xcxvvvcxvvxzxccxcbvcvccc . .... ..... ...... .. ............

[@brianwillson9567]

But the turbofans we fly off on holiday with are the grandsons and great grandsons of german axial flow engines, NOT Whittle's centrifugal flow engines.

[@JBils41]

True… but in 1945 they were a liability to 262 pilots…

[@markcameron360]

Horses for courses, as the video indicated, each compressor design had their advantages. If you ever flew a turboprop for example, the you will have engines with centrifugal compressors, even today; they are very robust. Axial compressors require much more careful airflow management through the use of bleed valves and variable incidence stators than centrifugal designs. Big modern turbofan engines occasionally have spectacular compressor stall events during the takeoff roll, plenty of YT videos to show this effect.

[@michaelburton3876]

No. The father of axial flow engines is Alan Griffiths who published his paper on the subject in 1926. He later became chief designer at Rolls Royce. All axial flow development springs from there. The film omits to tell you that the British had their own, arguably superior, axial flow engines in ww2 that developed into the very successful Sapphire range that powered many types of aircraft up to the 1960s.

[@johnhudghton3535]

Not at all true. They are the direct descendants of British engineering. The UK was developing axial flow engines at the beginning of WW2. The Metropolitan Vickers F2 "Beryl" engine was first run in 1941. It was later develeoped by Armstrong Whitworth into the larger Saphire engine powering Hawker Hunters, HP Victors and Gloster Javelins. Rolls Royce were developing the Avon at that time. My bet is half the aircraft you fly on are powered by Rolls Royce engines. I have a half cousin who was involved in that very development and it was indigenous British work not German engineering that produced the early axial flow for the UK.

[@stevetheduck1425]

It's worth looking at any plane with engine nacelles like the Me-262, that is also an airliner, such as the Boeing B737. Even late models of the plane, when the panels come off, show the middle of the engine has the familiar centrifugal-flow burner cans. The engines are still in use, in modified form. USA made, too.

[@romad357]

The Comet's "metal fatigue" problem was exacerbated by the square windows initially used. Rounding the sharp corners eliminated the weak spot. I doubt the would have even had the problem if rounded corner windows had been used from the beginning. Remember there were other aircraft with pressurized cabins that had flown way more hours than the Comets that crashed but didn't have as big a "metal fatigue" problem.

[@Nastyswimmer]

The original windows had rounded corners and weren't the origin of the metal fatigue. The problem was that the airframe had to be lightly built because of the low power of the engines. That meant that it flexed a lot - perfect for exacerbating fatigue, which propagated from poor quality and mis-aligned riveting that tore the metal. The windows contributed in as much as they were large, heavy and non-load bearing, meaning that there was less structural metal to carry the loads. Later models had smaller windows, more powerful engines, stronger airframes and better quality control - that's what fixed the problem.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The Comet 1 did not have square windows, they had the exact same 5 inch radius corners found on modern airliners. The Comet disaster was the result of gross engineering incompetence and criminal negligence, de Havilland used aluminium skins that were too thin and made out of unsuitable materials (AL2014A is too brittle), d-H admitted they never did the stress calculations for the fuselage section that failed, they made estimates based on test data that was performed incorrectly and produced false data.

[@CaptHollister]

Correction: propellers do not work by pulling an aircraft through the air. They work by pushing air backwards which creates a high pressure area behind the airplane and a low pressure in front. Thermodynamics then does the rest.

[@petemaly8950]

*We can clearly see that Centrifugal compressor gas turbine aero engines are currently produced.* *_In 1945 the centrifugal compressor RR Nene engine was of course the most powerful & most reliable gas turbine aero engine on the planet. Versions of the Engine would of course be produced in the US for use in US built jet fighters for the next 10 years & of course it was built in Russia for Mig 15 & Mig 19 aircraft._* Whittle was the first to conceptualise & patent a number of versions of the gas turbine aero engine including axial compressor, centrifugal compressor, reheat & turboprop & various types of turbofan arrangements. Whittle was the first to demonstrate the basic Whittle engine in 1937 of course. *The Pratt & Whitney PW-200 range of engines for example are a Whittle engine including reverse flow combusters of course.* _The gas turbine concept was of course invented before 1800 in England. Work on axial compressor turbojet engines began in England before 1930._ *_The world's first axial turbine & axial compressor having of course been first produced in England around or before 1900. Of course it is factually entirely correct that the same basic axial turbine & axial compressor technology for example is used in both Rankine & Brayton cycle turbomachinery._* *It is factually indisputable that C A Parsons manufactured the world's first axial turbine power generation turbomachinery & axial turbine ship propulsion turbomachinery.* _The exceptional & excellent W & J Galloway & Sons of course would be a good example of a company making steam engines & their boilers at the time during the late 1800s the world's first steam engines of course having been constructed in England in previous centuries, steam engines are not axial turbine power generation turbomachinery utilising axial turbine gas turbine & axial compressor technology in power generation & propulsion turbomachinery, W & J Galloway & Sons did not involve themselves with axial turbines or axial compressors. A steam engine is of course essentially a piston engine._ *The axial multi stage sequential rotor stator turbine of course exists in its own right independently where ever & how ever it is utilised including when used as a Dehavilland, Halford, Metrovik, Armstrong Siddeley, Bristol, Power Jets or Rolls Royce Gas turbine aero engine or ship propulsion gas turbine or for example a cruise missile engine or as power generation turbomachinery using Brayton or Rankine cycle turbomachinery configurations.* _The said axial turbine turbomachinery of course being produced for the first time in the world in England before 1900._ *_There is of course no doubt that The world's first Axial compressor jet engine arrangement was manufactured in England before 1937 work having started before 1930._* *It is factually correct that There are currently no instances of jet aircraft powered by Jumo engines or German technology engines, no US aircraft were powered by German jet engine technology. Such ridiculously shoddy extremely short life engines with sheet steel combusters & turbine blades would not under any circumstances have achieved US or UK certification* *_Of course All 1940s & 1950s US & UK, Russian, French / other countries built jet aircraft of course using technology from the UK based on the early Whittle engines & work done at the RAE & Metrovik up to 1943._* Indeed there is no doubt that all failed German attempts were of course half soaked copies of UK technology using partial info obtained from UK industry & academia. *_Rolls Royce of England now has 2 wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany one of which handles routine work on smaller 2 shaft engines & a wholly owned subsidiary in the US that was previously Allison of course._* *C H E E R S* *_etc.._*

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The Meatbox was not a fighter... it was never used in this role.

[@kiereluurs1243]

Which is?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@kiereluurs1243 A fighter

[@JBils41]

The Meteor was and was… The Aussies even used them in Korea to shoot down some MIG15s… Although I’m sure they would have rather been in F86s…

[@mrjockt]

@@JBils41Even the RAAF acknowledged that the Meteor was no match for the MiG-15 at anything other than low altitude, although the Meteor accounted for 5 MiG kills and 4 Meteors were lost in air-to-air combat, which is why they restricted the Meteor to the ground attack role.

[@JBils41]

@@mrjockt indeed… however, outclassed by the (far newer) MiG as it was in Korea… it was nevertheless designed as a fighter and used in that role…

[@TennesseeHomesteadUSA]

The 8th Air Force won the jet race. Used bombers to defeat German jets.

[@tomhenry897]

Germany got them in battle 1st

[@johnburns4017]

Only because swarms of B17s were flying over nearby the test facility.

[@DarrenWalley]

Another brilliant video 📹 from the Imperial War Museum. I love the English clarity & no-nonsense approach to these short documentaries. Also, a big 'Hello' 👋 from Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire. 😊

[@DaveAinsworth-y8h]

The first Jet aircraft was made in 1939 but not the Me262 A famous German Fighter used the Me262 in the war but by the British Jet Fighter after the War.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The most successful jet fighters after the war were the MiG-15 and the F-86 Sabre... both designed by Germans. The MiG-15 was designed by German Heinkel engineer Siegfried Günter. The F-86 was designed by German engineer Edgar Schmüd and a team from Messerschmitt, the first 6 Sabres were constructed with parts salvaged from Me-262s. The Gloster _"Meatbox"_ never saw operational RAF service as a fighter.

[@robertpatrick3350]

The British won the engine metallurgical race……. The series of high performance alloys they invented went on to dominate aerospace

[@RetroGamesCollector]

Not often mentioned but yes, it was why British jet engines had the upper hand until the early 50s and everyone wanted to copy one.

[@kirgan1000]

Now you make the Germans look so much better, The British build a jet engine out of high performance alloys, Germans build a jet engine a sheet metal, because they did lack the rare material to make high performance alloys.....

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Krupp introduced P-193 Tinadur~60 in 1932... it has a creep temperature of 1,600F... and used on the Jumo -00A Whittle used inferior materials like Browns 18/2 and REX 78, stainless steels used in cutlery and kitchen utensils' General Electric Turbocharger Division provided Rolls-Royce with Hastalloy B and Nimonic 70 used in their production turbine wheels.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@RetroGamesCollector Centrifugal turbojets were an evolutionary dead-end concept and were obsolete upon arrival. britian would not have modern axial engines until the 1950s... a full decade behind.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@kirgan1000 Krupp P-198 Chromadur is still used to build jet engines today its called A286. The Jumo 004 B had Chromadur blades made from sheet because they were designed to be hollow to allow bleed air cooling... they also had TBCs... technologies the Allies would not have until they were captured from the Germans after the war... in all German engines were a decade ahead.

[@GregLightfoot-j2t]

ME-262 542 Allied aircraft were shot down, although higher claims have sometimes been made. Gloster Meteor - bzzzzzt. Says it all

[@DrivermanO]

Not so. The 262 so far as I know, never flew over over England. The Meteor was banned from flying over Germany. But Allied bombers were swarming over Geman skies, whereas the only German planes over England were pretty much restricted to V1s. So the 262 had a very large customer base whereas the Meteor didn't. So you aren't making a fair comparison. If the roles had been reversed, then the figures you quote would have been too.

[@ChrisCrossClash]

Oh trust me if the RAF was losing the war or the Allies for that matter than Jets would have been on the front lines, as the Luftwaffe has basically been destroyed no need to waste the jets, Germany was done anyway.

[@DrivermanO]

@@ChrisCrossClash Exactly! You've just effectively agreed with me!

[@5co756]

​@@ChrisCrossClashThe first Meteor was barely faster than a prop , the Do335 was faster than this flying boat . There's a reason why the Meteor saw no combat in WW2 , it simply was not good at all .

[@ChrisCrossClash]

@@5co756 And you seriously have no idea what you are talking about, complete lies.

[@Militaryjournal1985]

Germany won it ! Plain and simple

[@redbanter7054]

plane and simple :3

[@tisFrancesfault]

Engine wise, thats not the case.

[@Who.Knew-The.Salt.MustFlow]

Not plain and simple at all. It is fair to say however that this is one situation worthy of a draw. The British got their patent in first and got their plane commissioned into the Squadron first, but the German design was the later way to go but their design had serious mechanical issues.

[@commandbrawler9348]

@@Who.Knew-The.Salt.MustFlow pattents dont matter during a war!

[@tisFrancesfault]

@@Who.Knew-The.Salt.MustFlow Even the latter point is not really true, in that the UK was already testing and developing a superior axial flow engine.

[@REI02021809]

When will your he162 be fully restored?

[@jondoe8889]

In aeronautics school I attended said that America got the Whittle design because we had more scientists and exotic materials. Britain thought we we could develop it faster. We got it for free?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The Tizard Mission was a desperate emergency mission to prevent Britain from being forced to surrender to Hitler, the country was completely bankrupt, and Tizard offered its unsalable technology package as collateral on millions of dollars in loans and war aid. America was already developing its own more sophisticated axial compressor jet engines

[@PNH750]

A number of inaccuracies and gaps in this video. The Junkers and Whittle jet engines produced roughly the same amount of thrust in the 1944/5 production ME262 and Meteor planes. The Meteor was greatly hampered by the drag of its huge engine nacelles. The Germans were short of special metals such as Nickel, Cobalt, Chromium, Titanium etc. All needed to manufacture strong turbine blades. German jet fuel was very unstable.

[@johnburns4017]

Wiggin in Birmingham were commissioned to develop and improve high temperature resistant alloys as the jet engines were being developed. The Germans had no such programme. The Germans did have access to rare metals.

[@mitchellcouchman1444]

@@johnburns4017 nickel content, JUMOs were 8% or so, modern jets are as high as 80%, Nickel was a strategic metal, nuff said

[@johnburns4017]

@@mitchellcouchman1444 Read what I wrote! Especially _"The Germans had no such programme."_

[@mitchellcouchman1444]

​@@johnburns4017 krupps tinadur and cromadur, do you seriously think Germany wasn't developing high temperature alloys? Also why develop a material you can't use hence allows with substitutions for strategic metals that are still used today with minor modification, A286

[@johnburns4017]

@@mitchellcouchman1444 Any R&D on high temp alloys in Germany was piecemeal. The UK has a specific programme to develop them.

[@petemaly8950]

*_When the 262 entered service it was indeed a thoroughly incompetent aircraft still classed as experimental & mostly untested & of course had an engine that had trouble lasting more than 46 minutes. That's why the engine had no tbo rating, it was indeed always totally fit for the skip before an overhaul would ever be required, probably the world's first totally inadequate fighter aircraft to be forced into service with such an unprecedentedly ridiculous engine. Indeed the aircraft had a do not exceed speed of 445 mph but of course was still actually unsafe to fly at that speed, its tested max speed was not safe to use at any time._* Of course by 1943 it was already firmly established that British fighter aircraft weren't going to be needed for destroying bombers or other intruder aircraft over England & so it was that the Gloster Meteor would not be involved in those activities. Indeed British military aircraft at the time did not have unusually high accident losses rates. The Meteor was of course never referred to by British Pilots as the Meatbox or the flying coffin. *For example* De Havilland Vampire & Sea Vixen & Gloster Meteor accident losses were not high or unusual for fighter aircraft at the time. Non combat phase accident losses % of Aircraft built. *Lockheed XF104 (ff 1954) 100%* *Vought F8 Crusader (ff 1955) 54%* *Lockheed P80 (ff 1944) 43%* *Lockheed F104 (ff 1954) 45%* *McDonnell FH Phantom (ff 1945) 35%* *_Gloster Meteor (ff 1943) 17%_* *_DH Vampire (ff 1943) 23%_* *_DH Sea Vixen (ff 1951) 33%_* *_Gloster Javelin (ff 1951) 20%_* *C H E E R S* The rather awesome Gloster Meteor broke world speed records in 1945 & 1946. *_Interesting world first - in 1945 an exceedingly fabulous Gloster Meteor became the world's first turboprop aircraft._* The RR Nene was the most powerful aircraft jet engine in the planet in 1944 being twice as powerful as anything else in Europe & would go on to be built under licence or copied in the US, Europe & Russia for the next 15 years. The video author hasn't got a clue unfortunately. Never mind. 2:03 Whitlles first patent was 1930, not 1932. 4:20 No, the axial compressor was not thought up in Germany for gas turbine aero engine use. In fact the multi stage sequential rotor stator axial compressor & similar axial turbine had been around since before 1900 having been created by Parsons of Ireland & North England for axial turbine power generation turbomachinery. The entire industrial world knew about the work of Parsons. Parsons licenced the technology to Brown Boveri & others on very generous terms. Whittles patents from 1930 onwards included patents for combined axial plus centrifugal compressor gas turbine aero engines. Whittle style centrifugal compressor internal combustion gas turbine aero engines using reverse flow combusters are currently manufactured & have been manufactured since 1938. Axial compressor internal combustion gas turbine aero engine work had been ongoing in England from 1927. 1:27 the process of ejecting a fast moving stream of gas from the tailpipe doesn't produce thrust, overall the rear parts of the engine being mostly the turbine & tailpipe actually cause rearwards pointing thrust which opposes the forward thrust being created forwards of the turbine section. 11:38 Metal fatigue was not an unknown before 1949 & De Havilland engineers knew everything there was to know about metal fatigue at the time the Comet was designed. & indeed *C H E E R S A G A I N* .. .... .... .... ..... ...... ...... .... ... xcxvxxcvcxcxcc Ccxvxccvxvxcxvv

[@countmorbid3187]

Saying "Primitive German cruise missiles" is such a stupid ignorant thing to say. At that time they were the pinnacle of rocket science made of alloys the UK couldn't even produce at that time.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Indeed, the Americans were so impressed by the V1 missile that they reverse engineered them, began their own production and adopted them into US military service!!!

[@petemaly8950]

​@@WilhelmKarsten The US didn't reverse engineer the pulsejet V1 or use anything similar for any reason. Advanced High Nickel low iron super alloys were developed in England around 1940.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

@@petemaly8950 *Republic-Ford JB-2.* *KRUPP P-193 TINIDUR 1932*

[@petemaly8950]

@@WilhelmKarsten Tinidur isn't used for high temperature high load applications such as gas turbine aero engine turbine blades & similar applications . Tinidur is a High Nickel Stainless Steel (an Iron alloy in fact) & as such was already known about in England before 1940. Pulsejet ideas had been knocking about long before 1940, the UK & US & others had been working on versions of cruise missiles using pulsejets & turbojets before 1943. The US pulsejet missile ideas were abandoned around 1945.

[@rudolphpohl4115]

You may attempt to split hairs, but the 262 won the race into combat.

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

by a whopping... 2 months ish

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 3 months difference... and 550 enemy planes shot down vs. Zero for the Meatbox.

[@johnburns4017]

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 By a few days.

[@johnburns4017]

Frank Whittle patented both centrifugal and axial flow engines. Ohain copied Whittle's patents making a centrifugal engine but it went nowhere. Germany adopted axial flow rather than Ohain`s failure. Whittle realized that centrifugal was easier and it worked bringing in quickly a jet engines that outperformed piston planes. Metropolitan Vickers went ahead with axial flow R&D being well ahead of the Germans. Rolls Royce took on Whittle's design improving it. The USA were given Whittle's designs, post war France tried to make the German jet engines work properly and reliably, wasting years while Armstrong Siddeley went ahead with the Metropolitan design. RR made the Derwent and Nene, RR then made the excellent axial-flow Avon, taking nothing from German failures, being the first reliable and perfected axial-flow engine. The USSR tried to get the German BMW to work properly but gave up when they got the RR Nene, Czechoslovakia had some me 262's after WW2, dropping the plane quite soon after. All modern jet engines and planes owe their existence to the British designs not the German failures.

[@charlesfinnigan3904]

There was no race, thats just spin to make a video interesting. If there was a race the germans would have had a jet in service in 1940 or 41, they had a prototype engine in 1936.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Hans von Ohain and Max Hahnn constructed the first jet engine prototype in 1934 and the second in 1936... the first successful flight test demonstration was on August 27th 1939... two years before the british.

[@davidforbes7772]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Based on Whittles papers. As you are a Nazi fanboy it explains why you have never said anything truthful.

[@petemaly8950]

​​​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke It's important to note & they should really pay attention at the back. Whittles engine configuration went on to become the Rolls Royce (England & it's shires) Nene for example. The most powerful gas turbine aero engine on the planet in 1944 being at least twice as powerful as anything else & more than many times awesomely more reliable (We have to arsk - Do they feel lucky punkenitz). Whittle's engine was first demonstrated in 1937, nothing that would be classed as a viable gas turbine aero engine & be manufactured in the thousands ran before the world's first demo of such an engine in 1937. Ohain's engine for example was junk, would sort of run 7 months after Whittles demonstration & then be abandoned. It's radial inflow turbine design also being permanently abandoned for ever for gas turbine aero engine use. Ohain was in fact working from Whittles patents & written texts, Ohain's main expertise & concern was avoiding irritating noise & vibration & being a very amicable & pleasant chap. Whittles engines would go on to form the basis of the Klimov VK-1, RD-45 & RD-500 used for the Mig 15 & Mig 17 & was the basis of the GE / Allison J33 used in a number of post war US jet aircraft, more than 8000 produced. Before 1937 the only gas turbine aero engine stuff in Germany was cardboard & tape models using info from England. Maxime's patent was simply a copy of the work & writings of Parsons (Ireland & North England) on axial turbine / axial compressor internal combustion gas turbine proposals & theory before 1900. *C H E E R S* & *_Toodle_* -PIP- *Old* _Chap_

[@gdock4862]

No F-80 Shooting Star mentioned. Now I am sad...

[@trespasserswill7052]

Yup. It was in service long after the ME 262 and Meteor were history.

[@5co756]

​@@trespasserswill7052It was already outdated as it entered service , Korean Mig's wiped them out like nothing .

[@jeffreycrawley1216]

I love the story that the British sent over masses of technical data and a Halford/Goblin jet engine (very similar to the Welland engine that powered the Meteor) for the Americans to install in their prototype but nobody told the FBI about the accompanying British engineer and so he got detained at immigration. When the engine was installed the Briton considered the inlet ducts were made of too thin a sheet metal but his advice was ignored and when they collapse and were sucked into the engine it was destroyed. Fortunately de Havilland came across with one intended for their Vampire and the Americans finally got "their" jet plane programme off the ground.

[@trespasserswill7052]

@@5co756 Don't forget the Mig15's impressive WWll record.

[@gort8203]

The irony is that if the 262 had entered service sooner it would have had more effect on the allied bomber offensive, potentially making the allied loss rate unsustainable and protecting Germany's vulnerable synthetic oil industry. The war would have dragged on longer and the allies would probably have seen a need to introduce their own jets into combat over Europe. The P-80 would have fared well.

[@briannewman6216]

Jet engines are not more energy efficient than piston engines.

[@onenote6619]

Early ones, no. But it was known that they would improve a lot. Piston aero engines in the 1940s were approaching the limits of their capacity while jets were only exploring their beginnings.

[@gort8203]

@@onenote6619 In term of pounds of fuel per mile a piston engine is more efficient, unless you try to fly it at jet speeds and altitudes.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Diesel engines are certainly lower SFC than turbojets... but compared to a WW2 fighter engine when WEP was used? Jets had better SFC at P-Max. The disadvantage of jet engines is max economically cruising speed or less... where SFC increases dramatically.

[@classicalvintagecollector]

You stated that it was more of a propaganda tool than a viable jet fighter. I suggest you listen to an actual Luftwaffe test pilot's statement as the fastest and best fighter he ever flew. 48:00 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rp6top2ubruJga8si=mkqnOgjBTPw4b6WL

[@gort8203]

DId the video actually state that the 262 was more a propaganda tool than a viable fighter? If so that's pathetic. I didn't watch that far because the video was unimpressive. Imperial War Museum????

[@Sacto1654]

I think the Meteor was probably a better plane because its jet engine was better "sorted out" than the troublesome Junker Jumo 004 turbojet used on the Me 262. But frankly, both the de Havilland Vampire and the Lockheed P-80 were better platforms for an early jet fighter.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Unfortunately british jet engines were no better than German engines... they had the same 100 PFTR requirements for operational service,

[@michaelburton3876]

More fantasy from Dr BMW.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@michaelburton3876 Just the facts here lad, the Luftwaffe, the RAF and the USAAF all had the same 100 hour PFTR requirements for adoption into service. Only the U.S. Navy had a higher requirement (150 hours) The USAAF exhaustively tested the Me-262 after the war as part of Operation LUSTY and confirmed that TBOs averaged 55 hours, EXCELLENT by WW2 standards and better than many Allied piston engines and jets engines. any question there lad?

[@Outlier999]

In mock dogfights conducted after the war, captured Me. 262s flew rings around the Gloster Meteors and won nearly every contest.

[@iansneddon2956]

Do you have a source for that, as it doesn't make much sense to me? The Meteor appears to be the superior dogfighter as it was more maneuverable and its weapons were more suitable for such combat. The Me262 also had better visibility from its cockpit. The Me262 had issues stalling when power was increased or decreased to rapidly which would add to its problems maneuvering relative to a Meteor. The Me262 also had an inferior climb rate to the Meteor With its superior speed and maneuverability issues, the Me262 would be best used for hit and run attacks - flying through at speed, firing and using that speed to escape. But its shorter range cannons were not optimal weapons for engaging fighters like this. It would depend on maintaining its speed to outrun aircraft that got on its tail. Not an unusual situation for a German aircraft. The Japanese didn't like the Bf109 as it performed poorly if used the way the Japanese preferred to fight. In a close dogfight with a Hawker Hurricane, a Bf109 had problems. The Bf109 couldn't turn as well as the Hurricane - allowing the Hurricane pilot to stay on the tail of a Bf109. Mock dogfights carried out in May 1940 with a captured Bf109 demonstrated this. The report on these tests concluded that the Germans were also well aware of the differences in performance between their aircraft and those of the RAF as the Germans preferred to dive down on the British aircraft and then climb away (the Bf109 had a superior climb rate to the Hawker Hurricane). You want to fight in a way that plays to your strengths and downplays your weaknesses.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@iansneddon2956 The Meatbox was an absolute failure as a fighter and completely outclassed by the Me-262.

[@crystaldbj]

Yeah, I guess they were mock combats, since the Me 262 would have been a ground target for the Meteors whose engines would actually last more than a combat mission.

[@PaulMcElligott]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Again, do you have a source, or are we supposed to take your word for it?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@crystaldbj The Me-262 was the only successful jet fighter in WW2... 26 Luftwaffe pilots scored Ace or higher flying the 262. Kurt Welter remains the highest scoring Jet Ace in History. Actually the Me-262 had superior engines to the Meatbox which would not have Derwent 5 engines until the F.4 entered service in 1946. The Meatbox only killed british pilots during the war.