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

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).

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

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

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

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

The TBO was ridiculously low

@@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.

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

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

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

He was quoting the Eric Brown

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

@@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.

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

@@petemaly8950 Name two

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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..

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

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

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

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???

@@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.

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.

@@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

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

@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.

@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.

@@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.

@@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.

by a whopping... 2 months ish

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

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 By a few days.

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?

@@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.

Britain fanboy detected

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

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

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

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

@@petemaly8950okay we get it mate slow down on the speed you’re gonna spontaneously combust if you don’t 😂 oh and CHEERS

@@ryguy-qh2qk 👍

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

​@@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

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

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.

@@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.

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.

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

​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke ​@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Indeed it is of course without doubt entirely true that there is nothing obsolete about gas turbine aero engines that use only centrifugal compressors. As they know, if we also include any GTAE with a centrifugal compressor as a compressor stage the list of engines & their applications is without doubt very large indeed, very very large. Currently manufactured Centrifugal compressor only gas turbine aero engine - Honeywell TPE331 *Applications list.* Aero/Rockwell Turbo Commander 680/690/840/980/1000 Antonov An-38 Ayres Thrush BAe Jetstream 31/32 British Aerospace Jetstream 41 Beech B100 King Air CASA C-212 Aviocar Cessna 441 Conquest II Comp Air 9 Conroy Stolifter Dornier 228 Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper Grob G 520 HAL HTT-40 Kestrel K-350 Mitsubishi MU-2 North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco Pilatus/Fairchild PC-6C Turbo-Porter Piper Cheyenne 400 Short SC.7 Skyvan Short Tucano (EMB-312S Tucano) Swearingen Merlin Fitted with TPE-331s as a replacement for their original engines - Beechcraft Model 18 Cessna 208 Caravan Cessna 337 Skymaster de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter de Havilland DH.104 Dove FMA IA 58 Pucará Grumman Ag Cat Grumman S-2 Tracker Marsh S-2F3AT Turbo Tracker Handley Page Jetstream PAC Fletcher SibNIA TVS-2MS (Antonov An-2 conversion) Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw *C H E E R S* & Of Course *Toodle* -PIP- _Old_ *_Chap_* Indeed.

​@@petemaly8950*ALL MODERN JET ENGINES USE A GERMAN AXIAL COMPRESSOR STAGE.* *CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR TURBOJETS ARE OBSOLETE.*

​​​@@petemaly8950*THE Pratt&Whitney TPE-331 IS NOT A JET ENGINE.* *The Turboshaft engine was invented by Norwegian Jens AEgidius-Elling in 1903.*

​​​​​@@WilhelmKarsten Indeed it is without doubt quite correct & definitely the case that before 1900 Parsons of North England & Ireland was of course a global pioneer of axial bladed multistage sequential rotor stator compressor & turbine technology used as power generation machinery & generously licensed to many companies around the world. Of course Axial compressor internal combustion gas turbine aero engine use being discussed before 1900 in England & serious research having been started before 1927. Elling wasted time making a 6 ton ride on lawnmower engine that was essentially a compressor fed steam raising boiler followed by a Parsons turbine to provide compressed air for a pneumatic lawn mower engine. As far as Centrifugal compressor GT aero engines are concerned By 1944 the RR Nene (happened to have a centrifugal compressor of course) was the most powerful GT aero engine on the planet & would go on to be the basis of engines manufactured all over the world including Russia, France, various countries in Europe & the US for decades powering a number of jet fighter aircraft in those countries. The GE / Allison J33 being a good example of which more than 7000 were produced after 1945. Indeed it is verifiably true of course that the gas turbine was without any doubt at all invented in England before 1800. *C H E E R S*

The Meatbox proved to be ineffective as a fighter aircraft in testing and never saw active combat service as a fighter, its RAF service remained limited to training, ground attack, reconnaissance and demonstration roles.

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke It fought as a fighter in the Korean war, and in later India-Pakistan conflicts. The Israeli ans Egyptian used them as soon as their Spitfires were used up as well. Post-WWII it's not unusual to see British jets in action. The French used the DH Vampire, called the 'Mistrale' , for nearly ten years, until Dassault got their engines working.

@@stevetheduck1425 The Meatbox never saw operational service as a frontline fighter aircraft, it saw action in the ground attack and in the Reconnaissance roles, by 1950 the Meatbox was an obsolete aircraft

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke The Meteor was getting outdated in the 1950s. It did see active combat service with the Australian Air Force in Korea. It's delegation to a ground attack role came after losses incurred fighting Mig-15s. Look up the battle of Sunchon. The RAF did not send fighters directly for the Korean war but transferred Meteors to Australia for their use, with some RAF pilots going with them. The other potential conflict for the RAF was the Suez crisis but the British landings didn't involve much air combat and the squadrons on the RN carriers were flying de Haviland Sea Venoms. But Meteors were in use during the conflict, but by other air forces. A Syrian pilot shot down a British reconnaissance aircraft with one. Israel used their Meteors against Egyptian jets (de Havilland Vampires) for the first jet vs jet kills in the Middle East. While Egypt and Syria had Meteors as well, I am not aware of any Meteor vs Meteor combat during the crisis.

@@iansneddon2956 The Meatbox was not a fighter and never saw operational combat service in that role, it was obsolete on arrival as a fighter aircraft.

The Gloster Meteor was superior to the Me262 in most respects (maneuverability, climb rate, reliability) and their Hispano cannons were a better weapon for air combat. Speed was the one key advantage of the Me262. Axial flow compressors allowed the German jet to achieve its higher speed. This wasn't a great mystery to the Allies. The British had an operational axial flow jet engine undergoing tests in 1941. Westinghouse (USA) had their model of engine in 1943. It's just that materials technology was not up to the standard needed to make a reliable axial flow jet engine. The German solution appeared to be just putting unreliable engines into jets and sending them into combat with complete engine replacements after around 12 hours of flight time. The British and Americans were never desperate enough to put half-baked prototypes into production. As for the future jet engine, the British and Americans continued jet engine development based on British jet engines, with improvements. France tried copying the Jumo engines and proceeding from there to leap into the jet age, but couldn't get past the prototype stage as even with better access to materials they still couldn't overcome the reliability issues of the Jumo 004 engines. Experimenting with a combination of jet and rocket engines didn't help them much either. They struggled while the British and Americans moved ahead. USSR developed their Mig-9 using a reverse engineered German engine (a BMW engine instead) but with similar reliability issues as the French had experienced. So they purchased a Rolls-Royce engine which they used as a basis for the much more successful Mig-15. The German engine designs appeared to be a dead end.

@@iansneddon2956 The Meatbox was completely inferior to the Me-262 Britian was a decade behind Germany in Axial turbojets and would not have a viable, flight-rated engine in production until 1950.

@@iansneddon2956 You are very much correct, the only "what if" that can't be answered is if the Germans had enough quality parts, fuel and development We often forget to take into account the 262 was pushed into service before it was ready (or probably even technically feasible, it took both powers years later to create a reliable axial flow engine) In a situation where everything was against it

​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerkeYawn!!!

@@Nightdare The Messerschmitt Me-262 was not rushed into service like the Allied jets were, the 262 had a long, extended development period and was well sorted when it entered operational service on April 19th, 1944. The advantage of the Me-262 for Germany was it required far less resources and manpower to build and used fuel made from coal which was readily available. Germany was a decade ahead of the Allies in axial jet technology and the Allies would not have a viable axial engine until German scientists and technology were captured after the war.

Not true, Metropolitan-Vickers received significant financial government support... as did Rolls-Royce, the problem was britian didnt have jets until 2 years after Germany. [

​@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke More fantasy!! Just do some proper research will you!!!!

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke There was no significant funding until late in the war for Britain's jet programs. This is well-known, so maybe do a little research before spouting rubbish. Britain still had a working jet engine BEFORE Germany however.

wasnt stealth

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 *It was proven to be radar stealth*

@@WilhelmKarsten no it wasnt, a few years after the war ended they said they rubbed charcoal or smth in the wood to make it absorb radar this was a lie

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 *Germany invented RAM technology and was the only country to have radar stealth technology during WW2.* *_Tarnmatte_** was a radar absorbing material developed and used in operational service for both U-boot periscope and snorkels, and a lightweight version for aircraft.*

The Jumo-004A made from Chromadur had low TBOs and could not pass the 100 hour PFTR requirements. The Jumo-004B features advanced pioneering breakthroughs in thermal management technology. The B version has bleed-air cooled turbine blades and TBCs, advanced ceramic thermal coatings made from Cerro-alumna. The B version easily met or exceeded the RLMs 100 hour PFTR requirements and the USAAF exhaustively tested the Me-262 during Operation LUSTY and confirmed TBOs averaged 55 hours... better than most Allied piston engines.

@@WilhelmKarsten The type A had turbines made of Tinidur and a service intervall of 160h flight time. The type B turbines used Chromadur as the supply of Titan from Sweden broke down. A alloy with manganese and vanadium was not as heat resistant as a nickel titanium alloy, it became quickly britle and corrosive. The titanium source in Sweden could not be replaced until the end of the war and even today turbine blades are made of a titanium alloy.

@@Rick2010100 *Turbine blades are not made of Titanium, Titanium has a very low creep temperature limit and is **_Prophoric_** which means it catches fire and burns.*

@@Rick2010100 *According to Dr. Anselm Franz the A version made with Tinidur had a PFTR of over 200 hours, the B version was rated at 150 hours.* *Both easily exceeded the requirements for adoption into RAF and USAAF service during WW2.*

​​​​@@WilhelmKarsten *262 engines often lasted no longer than 46 minutes.* *_The Rolls Royce Nene was the most powerful gas turbine aero engine on the planet in 1944 being at least twice as powerful & many times more reliable than anything produced anywhere else._* _The RR Nene was of course a centrifugal compressor jet engine, later Russian jet fighter aircraft (Mig 15 & 17 using a RR Nene copy) & US jet fighter aircraft (Lockheed Shooting Star & Lockheed Starfire) would use centrifugal compressor jet engines - GE / Allison J33 more than 8000 being produced in the US._ *In 1940 the only country that knew about the nickel super alloys (Mostly Nickel & almost no iron) & the reasons they worked & were required for gas turbine aero engine turbine blading was the UK.* *_High Chrome or high Nickel Stainless steel didn't work for gas turbine aero engine turbine blading & still doesn't._* _The rather awesome Gloster Meteor broke world speed records in 1945 & 1946._ *_Interesting world first - in 1945 an exceedingly fabulous Gloster Meteor became the world's first turboprop aircraft._* *Indeed it is undoubtedly the case that Whittle type centrifugal compressor reverse flow combuster gas turbine aero engines are currently produced by Pratt & Whitney - the PW-200 range of engines used for Turboprop aircraft & helicopters in fact.*

A10 is much better looking... safer to fly too.

@@WilhelmKarsten i just said it looked like it, not that it's better

@@coldie45 Yes, I think we both know which is the better aircraft...

@@WilhelmKarsten exactly

​@@WilhelmKarsten ​ Kharzeestan Krappenz DiktorBummer Jurkzxoffenz etc and co - they should all take note with great awe & much wonder. *UPDATE BREAKING NEWS* The Gloster Meteor broke world speed records in 1945 & 1946. A Gloster Meteor was the world's first Turboprop aircraft in 1945. British military aircraft at the time did not have unusually high accident losses rates. *For example* De Havilland Vampire & Sea Vixen & Gloster Meteor accident losses were not high or unusual for fighter aircraft at the time. Non combat phase accident losses % of Aircraft built. *Lockheed XF104 (ff 1954) 100%* *Vought F8 Crusader (ff 1955) 54%* *Lockheed P80 (ff 1944) 43%* *Lockheed F104 (ff 1954) 45%* *McDonnell FH Phantom (ff 1945) 35%* *_Gloster Meteor (ff 1943) 17%_* *_DH Vampire (ff 1943) 23%_* *_DH Sea Vixen (ff 1951) 33%_* *_Gloster Javelin (ff 1951) 20%_* *C H E E R S* & _Toodle_ *PIP* -Old- *_Chap_* . ... . ... .............. cvxcvxxiiivcvcicvxcv

It reused drag to have the engines in the wing root.

Your point is entirely correct, but also 20/20 hindsight. There were a great many experiments and in the end it turned out that podded engines were the correct choice for long-range cruise;.

The Meteors engines are fully accessible: large panels, easily removed, all ancillaries right on the engine, low to the ground. Many photos of Me-262s show ladders and so on used to get a stable working platform next to the plane, just like the Meteor.

Wrong!! Nearly everything you say is incorrect for reasons already mentioned. See above and other replies to your earlier posts.

@@michaelburton3876 I like your facts dude . 😅

@@5co756 Like your inability to read previous posts and comprehend, duuuuude.

This vid is full of mistakes

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.

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.

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?

@@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.

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.

thats got 0 to do with energy efficiency tho

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

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

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

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

@@54mgtf22 RAF Hendon is another great one

....and now full of falsehoods and jingoistic lies! 🤣🤣😂😰😭

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.

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 .

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 RU-vidr 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 🤔

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.

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.

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

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

@@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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

@@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.

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

@@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)

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.

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.

​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerkeWhat were these standards?

@@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.

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.

brown seems to not be the brightest then does he?

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

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

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

@@swiftymorgan5064 The truth bears repeating.

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.

And a Griffin engine because they maxed out the Merlin

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.

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

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

(:-)

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.

Germany not only had a clear lead in jet engine development but also in aircraft design, the RLMs _Deutsche Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt_ was the only supersonic aircraft wind tunnel laboratory in the world during WW2. Adolf Busemann wind tunnel tested the Me-262 the speeds up to Mach 1.4

​@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke The world's first supersonic wind tunnel was constructed in England during the 1920s. German wind tunnels managed about 7 seconds of run time every 2 days & were generally next to useless fortunately.

@ingostawitz The Germans were ahead in absolutely nothing. As the vid states the first in squadron service was the Meteor.

​​@@petemaly8950*FACT CHECK:* *Britain would not begin construction of its first supersonic aircraft wind tunnel laboratory at RAE Bedford until 1947.* *The Fedden Mission discovered that Germany was years ahead of Britain in supersonic aircraft technology.*

​@@johnburns4017*The German A4b Rocket plane successfully reached Mach 4 in 1945 (unmanned)* *Britain has never produced a Mach 4 aircraft and no longer builds its own jet aircraft.*

The Meteor was clearly not outclassed by the improved RR Nene copy engined Mig 15. In various encounters where the later Mig 15 aircraft should have been very superior it actually failed against the Meteor. The Meteors involved being an earlier development jet fighter did not have the necessary guaranteed superiority to ensure 100% superiority at all times & of course there were also political problems with their use by the RAAF in Korea & so their use was limited to ground support of Australian infantry only.

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.

It's highly debatable, Whittle developed the first jet engine on a test bed, Germany had been credited as having the first jet fighter operational. However Germany didn't build a reliable jet engine they would disintegrate turbine blades z whereas Whittle understood that turbine blades must contain alloys that could withstand great temperatures

​​@@Alladin-n5jHans von Ohain and Max Hahnn built the first turbojet engine in Gottingen Germany in 1934, Whittle would not begin any actual work on jet engines until moving to Rugby in 1936 and his first prototype run in April 1937 was a motor jet. Hans von Ohain was already testing his SECOND jet engine in Rostock Germany in 1937 Heinkel was already constructingthe first flight-rated jet engine (designed by Von Ohain.) Which flew on August 27th 1939, two years before Whittle's first attempt.

bri`ish nein

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.

@@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.

"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 😂

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

@@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.

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

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

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

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#

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.

​@@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 .

@@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.

@@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 .

Right, also my point. Very annoying trend.

Me-262 was the first jet fighter in squadron service, April 19th 1944... and the only jet that was successful in aerial combat during WW2. The Gloster Meatbox only killed british pilots during the war.

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke doktorbimmer, the vid said October 1944, which is correct.

@@johnburns4017 You and the Video are both wrong, the Me-262 entered operation squadron service on April 19th 1944 and shot down the first RAF plane one day before the Meatbox entered service on July 27th 1944. its a moot point because the Meatbox only killed British pilots during the war... it would go on to kill 450 RAF pilots

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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

​@@onenote6619 It was partly due to the realisation that since the engines were being sent all over the world & being manufactured under licence in many countries the Russian govt etc was going to get hold of some eventually one way or another.

As did the Americans

LOL, i like you sense of humour.

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

Agreed

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

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…

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

@@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.

Yet none went into combat

it never flew.

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.

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

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

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

centrifugal turbojets have no advantages

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

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.

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke doktorbimmer, now! now!

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

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

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

Frank Whittle patented both centrifugal and axial flow engines. Ohain copied Whittle's patents making a centrifugal engine but it went nowhere. Germany adopted axial flow rather than Ohain`s failure. Whittle realized that centrifugal was easier and it worked bringing in quickly a jet engine that outperformed piston planes. Metropolitan Vickers went ahead with axial flow R&D being well ahead of the Germans. Rolls Royce took on Whittle's design improving it. The RR Nene centrifugal was the most powerful turbojet in 1944 being at least twice as powerful as any other engine. Also, infinitely more reliable than any other engine. The USA were given Whittle's designs. Post war France tried to make the German jet engines work properly and reliably, wasting years while Armstrong Siddeley went ahead with the Metropolitan design. RR made the Derwent and Nene, RR then made the excellent axial-flow Avon, taking nothing from German failures, being the first reliable and perfected axial-flow engine. The USSR tried to get the German BMW to work properly but gave up when they got the RR Nene. Czechoslovakia had some me262's after WW2, dropping the plane quite soon after. All modern jet engines and planes owe their existence to the British designs not the German failures.

@@johnburns4017 And Which did he go with... End of Story

@@juke699 Who and what?

@@juke699 Ohain was a charleton. His first designs were centrifugal and failed. The Germans went for the problematic, at the time, axial flow design. The British flew a Meteor with an axial-flow Metro-Vick engine in 1943 dropping it in favour of the reliable centrifugal design. There were *five* turbojet engines in the UK under R&D in WW2: *1)* *Centrifugal,* by Whittle (Rover); *2)* *Centrifugal,* by Frank Halford (DeHaviland); *3)* *Axial-flow,* by Metro-Vick; *4)* *Axial-flow* by Griffiths (Rolls Royce); *5)* *Axial flow compressor, with reverse flow combustion chambers.* The ASX by Armstrong Siddeley; Metro-Vick sold their jet engine division to Armstrong Siddeley. The Metro-Vick engine transpired into the post war Sapphire. Most American engines in the 1940s/50s were of UK design, many made under licence. The US licensed the J-42 (RR Nene) and J-48 (RR Tay), being virtually identical to the British engines. US aircraft used licensed British engines powering the: P-59, P-80, T-33, F9F Panther, F9F-6 Cougar, FJ Fury 3 and 4, Martin B-57 Canberra, F-94 Starfire, A4 Skyhawk and the A7 Corsair. The US General Electric J-47 turbojet was developed by General Electric in conjunction with Metropolitan Vickers of the UK, who had already developed a 9-stage axial-flow compressor engine licensing the design to Allison in 1944 for the earlier J-35 engine first flying in May 1948. The centrifugal Rolls Royce Nene is one of the highest production jet engines in history with over 50,000 built. .

@@johnburns4017 No the charlatans are the British, who would have gotten their asses kicked if not for the Americans.

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

@@Poliss95 YES i know.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

Likely since it was a post war jet in effect.

Vampire was a postwar jet

Flew in 1943, which is in-war.

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

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.

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.

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*.”

@@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.

@@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.

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

well depends on what you count as winning, the british were the first ones to get the jet into active service, the germans may of got them into service first.. but they werent operation until the winter of 1944

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 The british fielded a few prototypes that were barely air worthy for morale and propaganda purposes, the germans had number of different jet fighters and bombers on active duty with trained squadrons and part of an doctrine. The Germans beat the British in many other technological marvels such as the first unmanned aircraft, first rocket, first glide bomb, first encrypted communications computer, first remote control bomb, first heavy lift operations aircraft etc etc. Froma technological and engineering standpoint, the British were severely outmatched in every single aspect before the war and for the duration of the war.

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 The first jet fighter in active military service was the German Me-262 on April 19th 1944... and destroyed the first Allied aircraft on July 26th one day before before the Meatbox entered squadron service. The meatbox was a failure as a fighter aircraft and never shot down a single enemy plane during WW2. The Meatbox only killed british pilots during WW2

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

​@@petemaly8950*PLEASE NAME A SINGLE BRITISH JET AIRCRAFT IN PRODUCTION IN THE UK???*