Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
marat,jean       7/1/2013 11:58:43 AM
No I would not compare the J-33 to the Nene. The Nene, was US subsumed as the Pratt and Whitney J-42, (Panther) in 1947 and in Russia as the Klimov engine that powered the Mig 15 in 1948. The J-33 flew January 1944. The Nene benchtested in October 1944 with double sided compressors to improve the air flow that was a problem in the intake tunnels. The J-33 AFAIK didn't use that solution, NACA preferring to change the baffle flow instead.
If the Nene was such a great engine, why did Britain REJECT it and pass it on to the US and Russia as dead-end technology? Could it be that the Avon and the J35 and Anselm Franz (JUMO 004) showed that Frank Whittle was wrong, (as he was)? 
Note that popular history never tells you why certain 'controversial' decisions were made.
The Americans for example already knew the Derwents were dead enders. Nathan C. Price and Kelly Johnson specifically knew that axial flow was the future before even the Germans did. (Price by 1938, Johnson by 1940.)
The Russians took a little longer (1950, Tumansky)
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/1/2013 5:05:49 PM
Whittle was well aware of the advantages of axial flow, his early writing clearly indicate this, however he was also of the opinion that the metallurgical science was not up to the requirements of an axial flow in the 30 -early 40s - a fact aptly proved
this is why he went the way he did he knew that this type of engine was possible and could be suitable for aircraft use, had he had the support in 34 he could have had a working engine in 38 
his engines were reliable lasting 100s of hours compared to  the Jumo's life which was measured in  minutes
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/2/2013 9:36:06 AM
By1947 the Americans built axial flow engines of 150+ hours.   

Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/2/2013 9:56:37 AM
and the British had axial flow engines running in 41!
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/2/2013 11:26:47 AM
That did not work or fly until 1945.

and the British had axial flow engines running in 41!

Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/2/2013 11:32:29 AM
You might want to look at this.

and the British had axial flow engines running in 41!

Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/3/2013 7:33:37 AM
the Metrovick F.2, ran in 1941 and was first flown in 1943.
All plans and developement notes on this engine were supplied to GE by the Tizard mission - yet of course the J35 was wholy a US engine
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/3/2013 7:46:10 AM
I'm sorry, OBNW. It didn't work as I said. The turbine fan spool warped due to uneven surface heating. The F-2 which was its successor to fix that problem didn't pass RAF quals until 1947. One carry flight that showed the F-1 engine's failure mechanism on a Meteor is NOT a RAF acceptance powered flight test.  
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/3/2013 8:54:18 AM
so wait a minute the Brits are rubbish because they didnt get an axial jet working until approimately the same time as the US - and whittle was wrong as he said that the materials for axial wernt available - so what did work was the whittle  engine and worked very reliable - you seem to arguimg against your own point,
Bottom line is that the Brits had Jets of both types running before the US and provided a lot of the information to even get the US started on Jets - Whittle actually worked at GE for a period
but as usual the US was better at everything
Did you know that Rolls Royce had a department set up to bring Packard engines up to standard before they were issued to the RAF!
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/3/2013 10:51:18 AM

They (Price and Pavlecka )never received the Whittle work as British historians claimed . And what they built was their own work. Even after the Americans got a pair of Whittles, (General Electric) and tore them apart, and knew those were WRONG, they used what was to hand. Then they went out and designed their own engines.  
Don't sell the Americans short, OBNW. Their engineers innovated with the best and their own government ignored them. They can do that work all by themselves, and they justifiably can claim their achievements as theirs. It flies over our heads every time an F-86 is flown at an air show. 
Quote    Reply