Who really won the WW2 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.iwmcollections.org.uk/co...
How has conflict has driven innovation in science and technology?: www.iwm.org.uk/research/resea...
Find out more about the Gloster Meteor: www.iwm.org.uk/history/gloste...
Follow IWM on social media:
/ i_w_m
/ imperialwarmuseums
/ iwm.london
Thumbnail image credits:
Gloster Meteor T7 by Ronnie Macdonald / CC BY 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Me 262 replica at Airpower11 MatthiasKabel / CC BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Creative Commons attributions:
Strahlflugzeug Heinkel He 178 by Bundesarchiv, Bild 141-2505 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Centrifugal Turbojet diagram original design by Emoscopes, Vectorization by Tachymètre / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Axial Turbojet diagram original design by Emoscopes, Vectorization byMilu92 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
He 162 underground production by Bundesarchiv, Bild 141-2737 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...

[@Deepthought-42]

12:11 Ironically fewer people killed in the Comet crashes caused by then unknown metal fatigue than the 737 max crashes some 70 years later caused inadequate testing.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The real tragedy of the Comet Disaster was that it could have been easily prevented if de Havilland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standards for the construction of pressurized cabins made from rivetted aluminum alloys. metal fatigue was discovered over 100 years prior and pressured cabins were introduced in 1931. The Max situation was caused by a government mandated safety device that was ill conceived, Boeing protested this mandate and was exonerated by the congressional investigation.

[@TheSeventhSeal]

Metal fatigue was known and understood, just not to the extent we do now. The Investigatory work to establish the cause of the crash advanced our understanding. The comet underwent over 100,000 pressurisation cycles during its development, sadly the subtle differences in metal characteristics was not fully understood and the changes from the prototype to production led to the failures.

[@TheSeventhSeal]

​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerkeWhat were these standards?

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@TheSeventhSeal The use of thicker skins, more durable alloys, rip-stop doubler joints, precision rivet fitting, and the use of stronger fuselage rings and stringers with proper spacing of rings of stringers for the designed pressure loads. Both de Havilland and the RAE received technical data from Boeing on metal fatigue in pressurized cabins during WW2 from the B-29 program... unfortunately d-H was still building aircraft primarily from wood and fabric and this data was not assimilated into d-H aircraft and forgotten. One only has to look at pressurized aircraft from other manufacturers prior to and concurrent with the Comet to see that de Havilland lacked the experience and knowledge that was required for an aircraft this advanced. de Havilland never successfully transitioned to building rivetted all-metal aircraft.

[@saveyourbacon6164]

The fact that the Comet 1 could only accomodate 36 passengers would have been the biggest factor in limiting the death toll from the three crashes.

[@timgosling6189]

The early Me262s did in fact have tail wheels, but this was changed due to aerodynamic interference caused by the the exhaust hitting the ground. Also, the swept wings were not 'designed for high speed performance'; that was a bonus only later discovered. The swept wing was the easiest solution to finding that the CofG of the engines had ended up too far forward and it was better than redesigning the entire airframe. I must also add that the fuselage design of the Comet was definitely not 'derived from that of the B-29'. The only similarities were that they were cylindrical and pressurised. Neither was the concept of metal fatigue 'unknown'. The Comet problem was that its effect, and especially the effect of pressure cycling, on this particular design was not as predicted, especially around the ADF antenna hatch. Who won the race to get a jet fighter into front-line service? I'd call it a draw. The first 262 trials and training unit, Erprobungskommando 262, was stood up in Apr 44 but it took some weeks to train up crews and develop tactics. The first recorded encounter with an enemy aircraft, a recce Mossie, was on 26 July, but this was on a training flight. The 262 was declared operational in Aug 44. In contrast, 616 Sqn RAF got their first Jets only in mid-July but they came with the pilots and ground crews who had been working for several months on the Service acceptance trials and they were ready to go straight out of the box. An interesting video but really needed a bit more work.

[@DanielsPolitics1]

But they didn’t get any recorded kills until much later, and the first claimed kill wasn’t a kill, as no planes of the claimed type were lost that day.

[@5co756]

What a BS with the swept wing design , Messerschmitt discovered that in his wind tunnel tests . There are reports of that , do you wanna say they planned a jet fighter and discovered later that it's unbalanced ? 😅 They were no idiots back then , they don't needed computer simulations like today . To see that this jet was nose heavy , you can calculate that pretty easy .

[@VikingTeddy]

I love the interviews and footage. All in all this is a very well made and enjoyable video, except for the parts that aren't. I can understand your average KZbinr who's only making videos for clicks, to get things wrong. But even uneducated enthusiasts have known for years about the false narratives (thanks largely to amateur yt historians). I find it difficult to understand how a channel dedicated to military history manages to make these mistakes 🤔

[@eric934]

Getting it's first kill doesn't denote when an aircraft went into service does it. Otherwise the Harrier wouldn't have gone into service until the Falklands Conflict would it? Even though it actually entered service 13 odd years before. WW2 Allied air tactics changed. They attacked ME 262's as they returned to base, when most vulnerable and out of fuel and ammo. Air superiority over The Reich means you can shoot 'em down as they approach home bases. Outside airfield flak defences.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

That's 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. It is the first jet to have ALL SWEPT control surfaces and was wind tunnel tested to Mach 1.4 It also has the first fly-by-wire (analog) Horizontal Stabilator developed to counteract the effects of transonic compressiblity and 'Mach Tuck' in a supersonic dive. 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.

[@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

[@farminky]

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.

[@54mgtf22]

Whenever I visit the UK, from Australia, a visit to Duxford is on the itinerary. Thanks for another great video. 👍

[@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.

[@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 .

[@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?

[@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

[@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.

[@TheRealNeill]

It's disappointing to see basic errors in an IWM video. Others have pointed them out in the comments.

[@fredyellowsnow7492]

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

[@raka522]

Me 262; Ar 234; He 162 all in combat missions at the front, Gloster Meteor pushed V1 rockets out of the sky that couldn't defend themselves ;-)

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

True, the Gloster Meatbox only killed british pilots during the war... 450 killed and 890 crashed.

[@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!!!

[@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

[@user-xq2zn8bu9q]

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. 😊

[@michaelhowell2326]

I knew the Spitfire had a large number of models, but Mk. 24? Holy moley!

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Seafire 47 had a contra-rotating 6 blade propeller. Some Mk numbers were experimental like the Mk III and IV leading to later production models.

[@Salfordian]

And a Griffin engine because they maxed out the Merlin

[@stevetheduck1425]

The last mark of the Spitfire design was the Seafire 47, and the new wing used on this plane was taken forward into the Supermarine Attacker, an early tailwheel jet fighter.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Those are the just the mark versions. There were variants of those

[@Idahoguy10157]

It’s complicated? Yes. However the Meteor was in service, and being used in action, before the Me262 was

[@almayne5733]

the Germans first jet powered flight was 27 August 1939. the Italians flew their first jet powered engine 27 August 1940. the Brits wasn't until 15 May 1941.Just think it's interesting that the Brits always try everything to leave the Italians out.

[@XtalQRP]

The Italian aircraft wasn't really a jet though, was it? It was really a ducted fan design, since the 'afterburner' provided minimal additional thrust.

[@almayne5733]

@@XtalQRP It was. Just because it used a piston engine to compress the air and then that was mixed with the fuel to create the force to propel it forward instead of a turbine engine. Just as a turbine engine does.

[@XtalQRP]

@@almayne5733 With all due respect, the fact that the N1 was flown on piston power alone during testing suggests that the combustion chamber provided minimal thrust.

[@almayne5733]

@@XtalQRP It is called a motorjet engine. It has a compressor chamber where fuel is injected into and ignited creating thrust or a jet. THose a jet engine. Just because it is not a turbofan does not rule it out as Jet flight.

[@johnhudghton3535]

The motorjet was a blind ally.

[@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 time 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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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).

[@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.

[@JMK948]

This was the first video from the IWM since I got a souvenir poster of a Spitfire.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

Correction - the sweep wings were adopted because of issues with the aircraft centre of gravity.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

(:-)

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

That false myth is easily debunked by the historical evidence and common sense... The Me-262 was designed from inception with swept wings and all swept controls surfaces, it is also the first jet with a fly-by-wire HORIZONTAL STABILATOR to counteract the effects of compressibility and Mach Tuck in a supersonic dive.

[@guaporeturns9472]

So the jet engine was developed in both countries basically simultaneously with neither side aware of the others development? I didn’t know this.

[@Poliss95]

RV Jones was aware of jet engines in Germany in 1939.

[@c-teamtrading9690]

The difference being , ALL jets flying today where developed from the German jet engine NOT the British one!

[@michaelburton3876]

Not so. The British knew all about axial flow engines and developed their own during ww2. This was the Metrovick F2 which was fitted to test aircraft from 1942 onwards. However, the British were also aware that despite their superior metallurgy, more research and testing was needed to make these engines more reliable. They knew all about the problems the Luftwaffe were having with their inferior materials. Hence they stuck with the centrifugal units for the duration of the war, many examples of which are still flying today. To finish, if the majority of today's engines have anyone to thank it is Alan Griffiths who published his paper on axial Flow turbines in 1926. He of course later became chief engineer at Rolls Royce. Everything developed from there. The British Metrovick F2 was developed into the very successful Sapphire axial flow engine.

[@wahiba]

Ohain really only got going after seeing Whittle's patent, well that is what he told Whittle after WW2 when they finally met, and remained friends.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The jet engine was invented in Germany 2 years before the british

[@neiltitmus9744]

Yes the engines on the me lasted about 80 minutes the engine in meteor lasted 80 years

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@htschmerdtz4465]

Depends on what you mean by, "won". The radial-powered, prop-driven Vought F4U fighter virtually matched the Meteor in speed and could climb higher, to 41,500'. When the British design went into service, it literally had no performance advantage over piston fighters. Right out of the box the Me 262 was 100 mph faster than the Meteor and that gap grew with development. Without performance to match the Messerschmidt, turbojet power was merely a novelty. Not looking to bestow honor on the NAZIs, but you've got to give credit where it is due.

[@jimdavison4077]

"Right out of the box the Me 262 was 100 mph faster than the Meteor and that gap grew with development." Okay the F1 that chased V1 rockets getting over a dozen air to air kills only had as 415 mph top speed. That would be 100 mph slower than the 262 would when it entered operational service five months after the Meteor in July 44. That said 616 squadron took F3 versions to Belgium which had an identical top speeds as the 262 in December 1944 the same month JG 07 became the very first operations Me 262 squadron. Both aircraft had a top combat speed of 515 mph. However 616's aircraft were fitted with the newer engine nacelles and tear drop canopy of the F4 while in Belgium some time before they moved into Germany before the war ended. The engine cowlings provided a recorded 75 mph increase in speed alone. Now Jumo always intended to provide unrated engines yet the war ended before they materialised so I don't know of any development which increased it's speed. Given the sweep of the wing was do to the Jumos weight any future engine shift could have meant a wing redesign as well. People forget the RAF had another jet fighter in the wings which had been delayed because it's engines were being used in the P80 development program which delayed flight testing. It's third prototype beat 262 performance numbers easily.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@jimdavison4077 The Gloster Meatbox was never faster than the Me-262... and it was unable to reach 500mph until the Derwent 5 powered F.4 appeared in 1946.

[@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.

[@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..

[@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.

[@mollyfilms]

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

[@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

[@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

[@brianandjillianadamson5479]

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

[@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.

[@user-qk4wq5jt5q]

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)

[@BV-fr8bf]

Well balanced evaluation, thank you.

[@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.

[@Nick-13]

Extremely interesting - still find it hard to believe that there is a dearth of literature and programmes about Whittle

[@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

[@mikdavies5027]

As Basil once stated, "Who won the bloody war?"

[@guaporeturns9472]

Came here to laugh at indignant Brits and their fragile egos. You didn’t disappoint 😂

[@mikdavies5027]

@@guaporeturns9472. Nothing wrong with my ego, pal!!😀😀😀

[@mikdavies5027]

@@guaporeturns9472. This comment obviously comes from someone from a vanquished nation of ours!!! Of course the "Brits" are the best!!!!

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@mikdavies5027 Nope , Prestwich born and raised

[@raypurchase801]

@@guaporeturns9472 Strange you can't spell your hometown's name. Go back and edit it.

[@gspaulsson]

The Me262 looked way cooler.

[@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.

[@RJM1011]

It made sense for the Meteor over the UK airspace to help stop the V1's.

[@Poliss95]

@RJM1011 The Hawker Tempest was well capable of shooting the V-1s down.

[@RJM1011]

@@Poliss95 YES i know.

[@XtalQRP]

@@Poliss95 Not once the V1 had crossed the coast. V1's steadily built up speed once they left the launch site and finally reached c. 400 mph once they got to the UK. Screens of piston fighters out in the channel were successful at interception, but if any got past them they couldn't catch up. Only the Meteor was capable of gaining on the doodlebug in a tail chase once it had reached its top speed. Meteors were therefore deployed in a narrow corridor between the Kent coast and an inland 'no fly zone' closer to London, where AA guns took over.

[@jimdavison4077]

@@XtalQRP The Tempest Thunderbolt and Mustang all reached 440 to 460 mph range which was faster than the F1 who only did 415 mph. The Spitfire using the Griffon since 1943 could reach up to 480 mph so was the fasted fighter facing the Luftwaffe by the western allies.

[@XtalQRP]

@@jimdavison4077 At altitude yes, but all were slower at sea level. The P.51 could only manage 370 mph at low level in dense air. As V.1 interceptions typically took place below 4000 feet piston fighters could not catch it once at top speed. Hence the use of the Meteor F.1 to catch those bombs that made it past the Kent coast.

[@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

[@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.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The Gloster "Meatbox" only killed british pilots during WW2...

[@geordiedog1749]

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

[@seavixen125]

Agreed

[@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.

[@Hi-zf4bn]

Uhh the 2nd Wikimedia image showed was a turboshaft engine (for helicopters), not a turbojet...small mistake but otherwise unproblematic.

[@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.

[@user-yy9hk9od9u]

The Soviets won. They got jet engines without the costly development.

[@silverwolf3745]

As did the Americans

[@jimdavison4077]

LOL, i like you sense of humour.

[@mitchellcouchman1444]

@@silverwolf3745 Americans spent alot during the war on jet engine development too...

[@centurymemes1208]

Red tails negs it. 😊

[@user-ff2iz5qc6l]

The Jumo suffered from a lack of top quality materials. It was a good design, the metallurgical material wasn’t available

[@michaelburton3876]

The British on the other hand had developed Nimonic and other alloys, many of which are still used today.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Germany was the the worlds leader in heat resistant stainless steels, Krupp P-193 Tinadur was introduced in 1930

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@michaelburton3876 The Krupp alloys used in the Jumo-004 are also still used in jet engines today... they also use TBCs and bleed air cooling, both invented in Germany for the 004

[@user-ff2iz5qc6l]

Thanks for the info. I haven’t heard about the British and Krupp materials

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@user-ff2iz5qc6l Whittle used Browns 18/2 and REX 78, stainless steels used primarily for cutlery and kitchen utensils... Rolls-Royce received help from General Electrics Turbocharger division and offered the british its 'Hastalloy B' and 'Nimonic' developed by Canadian company INCO. What made German engines so advanced and successful was the introduction of ceramic thermal barrier coatings like 'Cerro-Alumina' and the use of hollow turbine blades with forced air cooling. these technologies were unavailable to the Allies and are standard features on modern jets. cheers!

[@Rangera-ct1xu]

all jet engines in use today are derived from the german axial flow jet engines. the british centrifugal compressor was a very wide and was a dead end.

[@michaelburton3876]

Yawn. The Germans didn't invent the axial flow jet engine. Alan Griffiths, later chief designer at Rolls Royce, published his paper on this subject as far back as 1926. If anyone is to be credited with the invention, it is him. Additionally, as mentioned above, the British had a much better axial flow engine from 1942 onwards. One that didn't flame out every five seconds!! The Metrovick F2 developed into the Sapphire which went on to have over twenty years of service powering many types of aircraft.

[@nerdyali4154]

The centrifugal engines were the right choice for the time and rapidly superceded the German axial flow engines in power as well as being far more reliable. The German axial flow engines were a dead end, having a poor development potential.

[@johnhudghton3535]

Twaddle you know nothing. Look up Metropolitan Vickers F2 Beryl engine. First run in 1941 and eat your sorry words.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Centrifugal turbojets were an evolutionary dead-end concept and were obsolete on arrival. Britian would not have flightworthy production axial turbojets until the 1950s

[@stevetheduck1425]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Still in use. Recently saw a Boeing B737 with the panels off. The middle of the engine has all the familiar 'burner cans' from a centrifugal-flow engine.

[@billballbuster7186]

Both types of early jet engine were invented by the British, the Axial-Flow invented by Alan A. Griffiths and Centrifugal-Flow by Frank Whittle. The Germans actually used plans and data published by Griffiths to build their jet engines. The RAF were uninterested in Jet production but eventually funded the Whittle as it showed more promise, by the end of WW2 the output was over 5,000 lbs thrust for the Whittle compared to barely 1,700 lbs thrust for the Axial Flow, UK or German. However by the late 1940s the Axial- Flow engines from Rolls Royce and Armstrong-Siddley were reaching over 9,000 lbs thrust.

[@jacqueslefave4296]

American here. What I like about the Comet was that the engine didn't need extraordinary materials science and the attendant expense to make. I still think that it is an EXCELLENT power platform for developing an efficient, affordable private business jet. The UK is always looking for ways to build up their manufacturing sector, this would be a great candidate.⭐

[@billballbuster7186]

@@jacqueslefave4296 The DH Comet was a mess, first designed in 1942 it was rushed into development in the late 1940s It was the Worlds first with a jet airliner. The 4 x DH Ghost jet engines were barely adequate for such a large airframe, so it was built too light. Resulting in metal fatigue, that should have been discovered during test flights.

[@knoll9812]

Germans made bad decisions. Specifically cancelling Heinkel jet engine which would have been oerfecyfor 262

[@jacqueslefave4296]

@@billballbuster7186 I know that the design doesn't "scale up" well, it can only power up by widening the girth, and that would quickly make it far too big for a passenger jet or bomber. That's why I suggested it for a business jet, such as the Lear jet. I know that it wouldn't be a simple bolt on, design and avionics would require a substantial makeover. But for that purpose, I maintain that it is a winner.

[@robertsmith4681]

Unpopular opinion : Soviets did. They skipped all the development costs and just copied the finished product..

[@onenote6619]

Yup. And Britain sold it to them in the form of the Nene engine. Foolishly expecting that Uncle Joe would pay them royalties.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@benbennit]

Push those meteor engines to the back you got a twin of the A10

[@megapangolin1093]

Excellent examination of the reality of the origins of the jet. Good insight into the two aircraft. May I politely suggest that close, close ups of the face of the presenter just talking do not add to the visual joy of this production.

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

The Gloster was reliable & got a good mileage to service ratio, the Me 262 wasn’t reliable & needed the engine rebuilt after almost each flight.

[@calimdonmorgul7206]

That was to great extend due to lacking availability of various critical recources as well as low production quality in the later stages of the war.

[@simonrooney7942]

The GE copy of the German engine had the same problem!

[@calimdonmorgul7206]

@@simonrooney7942 There was a GE copy? What about the other post war variants which do not seem to have been particularly unreliable? The axial flow design was the way to go. The comment above was also highliting the extreme issues experienced with the engine during WW2 which certainly were caused by the need to use inferior materials in production.

[@HaVoC117X]

Brits twisting reality as its finest! Much to cope till you left the EU huh? The Jumo 004A made out of heat resistant materials which did not need extra blade colling had finished serveral 100hours test runs by early 1944. The productive engine Jumo 004 B with non heat resistant alloys had 20 hour service life. That's 15 sorties (15 interception) with a very high successrate of actually shooting down a bomber. In 1941 a bf 109 in frontline service had a service life of 125 hours bevor it was lost or damaged beyond repair. Against the allied bomber streams in late 1944 this dropped down to 10 hours. And the changes of success to get a Bomber were much lower in a bf 109. Do the math and you will see why the Me 262 was a reasonable option for the Germans. For around 800 by luftwaffe accepted airframes they produced over 6000 very cheap jumo 004B engines, were every unit costs only a thrid of a comparable piston engine (like db 605 or jumo 213). Engine exchange could be done in one hour and they were typically replaced after 15 hours.

[@hypergolic8468]

@@HaVoC117X Well it was a cheap engine if (as the Germans did) you run concentration camps and murdered the workers. The cost economics can't be compared as UK factories paid workers a wage. However, there is no dispute (as Winkle Brown says) that the German engineers were on the correct path, in the long run, but for that point in history the British engine was the way to go. But as you know it wasn't a long period, that's not twisting it, it's the reality.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@AM-cw1kp]

The British Chief of Staff was afraid that the war would last beyond June and Jyly in Europe. They knew that the Germans were developing even better jets that the ME 262

[@michaelpielorz9283]

In the race to be the best jet in WWII the Meteor finished at a formidable second spot and that ME262 became second last!

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

The Gloster Meatbox was an appallingly bad design that only killed british pilots during WW2....

[@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.

[@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.

[@farminky]

"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.

[@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

[@tomsemmens6275]

The Meteor has a much better smile.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

And a much higher accident rate... 890 crashed killing 450 british pilots... it only killed british pilots during WW2.

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke uh.. those 450 pilots died after ww2... you said it yourself

[@MM-ep2zq]

Germany simply because the ME262 was the world's first operational jet powered fighter. The Luftwaffe used them from around early 1944 until the end of the war. More importantly, they saw action in the skies over Europe. The Meteor on the other hand, whilst also introduced later on in 1944 was largely restricted to the UK and was only used to intercept V-1s.

[@youdontneedtoknow6621]

The me262 was not the first operational jet fighter. RAF records prove that a lot of the German claims of kills (especially of mosquitoes) were false. Stop buying Nazi propaganda

[@dbzfanexwarbrady]

i mean the UK didnt need to push/rush them out , by late 1944 the German airforce was effectively wiped out

[@cpj93070]

Rubbish, the UK didn't need to use there Jets as they were winning the war anyway, and the Luftwaffe was basically destroyed by that point.

[@gingernutpreacher]

Have a look at hard thrasher video on it. The numbers don't back up operational rather prototypes that saw combat

[@tinglydingle]

The German claims don't line up with figures of RAF losses, it seems pretty likely that the German records were fudged, either deliberately or circumstantially.

[@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.

[@Polar-nv1oy]

Airship was built to carry passengers* Someone : let's use it for war! Jet was built to use in war* Someone : let's carry someone!

[@davidewhite69]

7:56 although I have the utmost respect and admiration for the late Eric Winkle Brown, he is wrong in saying today every jet in the world is axial flow, centrifugal jet engines are still very much in production, for example in gas turbine ground power units such as the -60B

[@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…

[@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.

[@REI02021809]

When will your he162 be fully restored?

[@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.

[@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.

[@lopc1907]

The me 262 killed more than 700 enemies, how many did the Gloster meteor kill???

[@razgriz380]

You fail to mention that most of those kills were bombers. Slow, lumbering and grouped together. Boom and zoom tactics make not a great plane. Very restricted view.

[@cpj93070]

Eh tell me again who won the war? 😂

[@nickthompson9697]

Who won the war?

[@RetroGamesCollector]

700 🤣 Did Goebbels tell you that?

[@farminky]

@@razgriz380 yes, that's what they were originally made for

[@user-ss7jl8ze9q]

Ohain got his inspiration from a paper that Frank Whittle wrote well before the war. This gave him a boost , as British authorities dismissed Frank's proposal. Finally, as war was coming closer, they allowed Frank to start making a practical key engine. The Germans had a big head start.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Hans von Ohain was inspired by the Swiss company, Brown, Boveri und Cie's Velox gas turbines demonstrated in Berlin in 1930.

[@michaelburton3876]

Please provide provenance for that.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@michaelburton3876 Thanks to the _Information Age_ Everyone knows that it was Maxime Guillaume who filed the first patent for a turbojet aircraft engine on May 3rd. 1921 and was issued on January 13th Patent number 534.801 You can look at von Ohains patent and clearly see it bares absolutely no resemblance to either Whittle's or Guillaume's patent. Key was Ohain was first to build and demonstrate a working jet engine. whittle never constructed his 1930 patent design, he abandoned it and started over in 1936. with a single stage centrifugal compressor. a massive cast iron furnace blower (driven by a 4-cylinder Austin Dixie automobile engine) salvaged from the basement of the iron foundry where Whittle had set up shop in 1936.

[@user-ss7jl8ze9q]

@@michaelburton3876 It was in a documentary about Frank Whittle. His theoretical proposal was published in the late 1920s or early 1930s in various magazines as, "The New Way To Power Aircraft?" Ohain, being interested in any kind of aviation read it and formed his own ideas on how it might be done. He got funding by the new government, while Whittle had to fight for any assistance by the British Government. That's why the Allies were behind in jet technology, even though Whittle came up with the idea first. It's really a heartbreaking story.

[@freebeerfordworkers]

Not an aircraft buff but I heard the meteor was nicknamed the meteorite after a metal object that fell out of the sky without warning.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

RAF pilots called it the Metorite or more often the "Meatbox" 890 in RAF service alone crashed killing 450 british pilots

[@tomhenry897]

Germany got them in battle 1st

[@johnburns4017]

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

[@user-zv6nk6yn8s]

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.

[@cpj93070]

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]

@@cpj93070 Exactly! You've just effectively agreed with me!

[@5co756]

​@@cpj93070The 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 .

[@cpj93070]

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

[@Yes_im.a-lordpeacock]

I cant believe people are correcting imperial war museums

[@peterbrazier7107]

I'd say The Meteor was better, it may have not been as fast but its engines were more reliable.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Thats also not true... 890 Gloster Meatboxes crashed killing 450 british pilots in RAF service alone... the most common accident scenario was an engine failure on take-off or a go-around.

[@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.

[@htschmerdtz4465]

A turbojet is not more energy efficient; a piston-powered propeller will always win the efficiency game in terms of miles per lb of fuel. It is true that turboprops are closing in on that kind of efficiency, but no turbojet on the planet has ever achieved comparable efficiency. Why? Because it takes more fuel to accelerate a small amount of air to very high speeds, while it takes less fuel to accelerate a larger amount of air to a relatively slower speed. This is common knowledge written in every aeronautical engineering textbook.

[@danpetrescu4915]

why they don't ask HENRY COANDA , he already build and fly in 1910 !!!!

[@veritycloud1236]

it never flew.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

It was not a jet engine, the 1910 was a ducted fan powered by in-line 4-cylinder Clerget engine. The plane never flew and was not intended to fly.

[@flieger7213]

At least that Romanian aerodynamics pioneer knew more than the Brits when it comes to jet fluid dynamics and its effect on curved surfaces.

[@johnburns4017]

@@flieger7213 He never really, but the Brits employed him.

[@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.