Bearair Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I suppose that the decision to supply Russia could be considered nieve looking back now. But it must be remembered that Britain was overwelmingly socialist in 1948. The americans had ripped apart the British mandate for Palestine and aided and assisted the Zionist terrorists killing british troops and forcing smaller countries to vote for the creation of the zionist state. By 53 America was overturning democratic goverments and instaling its dictators in there place. Whilst anyone with a bit of sense realised that Russia had no wish to see another war in Europe over 20million Russian dead saw to that. As was hinted at in the film the British goverment felt that far from the defence issue the real reason the Americans didnt want the Comet sold to ANY country was more for commercial than defence issues. The later duplicity of Lockhead and the Starfighter bears that out. As far as I can see Britain was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Remember at best the Americans were worried about Russia's ability to attack them not Britain's or Europes protection! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Pritchard Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 "Not a mention of the first Jet fighter to see combat sevice in WW2 the Me 262 In my opinion a far more advanced design than the Meteor Aircraft such as the Vampire, Hunter, Mig 15 and Sabre incorporated a lot of design features pioneered by the Me262. The programme is very biased towards us Brits. I suppose we need to remember when Britian was a World leader in the world of aviation ." Kelly, maybe the ME262 was the first jet fighter but surely the intro gave away what the show was about "How the invention of the jet engine transformed Britain after the Second World War and came to capture the imagination of a generation and define how the Cold War was fought" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearair Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Wasn't the Mig 15 thought to be based on the Blohm and Voss P212 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Bearair, the Mig 15 as I understand it is based on thefocke-Wulf Ta183. Also I understand where you're coming from on the politics. It is true though that countries put their own interests first and when you're no longer number one, you come second best. Even so, even though there's loads we can criticise the Yanks for, there's no way that I could put them in the same bag as the Russians for murdering their own people, having signed a treaty with Hitler before Barbarossa, brutally occupying most of Eastern Europe and having plans to get as far as Paris if they could have. I'll side with the Yanks, I think. Nobody's perfect. Mark the Me262 was originally designed with a straight wing. The sweep back was introduced as the only way to get the cg in place. As far as swept wings are concerned, the belief that German swept wing technology was the way to supersonic flight was given as one of the excuses for the cancellation of the Miles M52, which although designed with the intention of going through Mach 1, had a straight wing. This cancellation proved to be a mistake for a number of reasons and the success of planes like the Bell X1, Starfighter F5 and F16 shows that you can do it perfectly well with straight wings. Even the straight winged Avro Canada CF100 Canuck had a similar performance to the swept wing delta Gloster Javelin and could exceed Mach1 in a dive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Saunders Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 After the war we did lead the way forward with the jet engine, fortunately we had Frank Whittle(whos ideas were eventually being taken seriously) and Rolls Royce amongst others helping us ride the crest of a wave of rapid development, engines were tested completed for installation in a matter of months ! As for the Me 262, which I thought were mentioned early in the program, yes it was very advanced aircraft, but a very dangerous experience for the pilot, if he was not incinerated during flight he ran the risk breaking his back during landing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Privett Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Posted by Jez Saunders on 10/11/2013 10:56:26: As for the Me 262, which I thought were mentioned early in the program, yes it was very advanced aircraft, but a very dangerous experience for the pilot, if he was not incinerated during flight he ran the risk breaking his back during landing. Would it not perhaps be the ME163 "Komet" rocket-powered airccraft that you're thinking of? They had no wheels - taking off from a dolley and landing on a skid. And due to the fuels used had a tendency to explode, particularly on landing or for any fuel leak to dissolve the pilot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Saunders Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 John, you are correct, my apologies to Kelly. Got my 262's up with my 163's. Reading too many books at the moment will get my facts straight next time !. Jez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lima Hotel Foxtrot Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Posted by Steve Hargreaves - Moderator on 09/11/2013 10:13:39: A couple of points that stuck out for me was the bit about the Labour government "selling" jet technology to Soviet Russia.....I think they actually GAVE it to them but on the strict understanding that it wasn't used in military applications.....of course you could trust everything Stalin said but it seems incredibly naive now doesn't it? Well, the Soviets would probably have got there eventually, either from our secret and intelligence services being riddled with commie spies passing classified material to comrade Stalin, or from having loads of captured German scientists and engineers - German jet technology was arguably more advanced during the war. One of the chief reasons they could not capitalise on it was a bombing campaign that reduced their industrial manufacturing ability and the resulting lack of vital high-temperature alloys, as well as Hitler's insane tactical meddling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Saunders Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Also Lima because of the intence reaserch being done buy the natzi regime under orders from Hitler to enhance 'the superior race' he took his eye off the bigger picture. By shear numbers he was superior,thank god that evil was defeated and we can remember with pride and gratitude those who gave their lives and youth today. The world could have been very different to what we know today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFlyer Smyth Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Just to remind one and all that Part 2 is on tonight covering the V Bombers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Agate Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 Anything's better than Pudsey Bear!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnor Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Great programmes, but I was sad to hear the "expert" James Holland perpetuate the error that the brilliant Sir Frank Whittle "invented" the jet engine. He certainly didn't. The first successful gas turbine was designed and built by a Norwegian engineer in 1903-- a patent to put one in a aircraft was taken out in 1921 The German engineer Hans von O'hain was building a jet engine at the same time as Sir Frank, and the Germans had their jet powered aircraft in the air before we did. Check it out on Wikipedia -- look for jet engines and Sir Frank Whittle. Fascinating stuff which once more illuminates the past activities and attitudes of that most useless of mammals -- politicians. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Fair enough Jonnor. It's also true though that Whittle's patents pre-dated Von Ohain's work and that the German is believed to have looked at these before he built his first engine. If Whittle had received the kind of support that Von Ohain did from the Heinkel brothers, he might well have been three to five years earlier than he was. Also von Ohain's work didn't lead to anything, whereas Whittle's design lead to the very successful Rolls royce centrifugal flow jets which were a far better bet than the early attempts at axial flow and certainly better than the BMW and Junkers engines. Ok, they were dogged by materials problems, but even so RR seemed to be able to beat anything the Germans could do engine wise right through the war. Whittle deserves his reputation, von Ohain probably deserves to be remembered better than he is and I wouldn't argue with that. I also think that politicians are even more useless than you describe, do they count as mammals? I'd class a lot of them with reptiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Jones Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Posted by Kelly on 09/11/2013 11:47:31: Not a mention of the first Jet fighter to see combat sevice in WW2 the Me 262 In my opinion a far more advanced design than the Meteor Aircraft such as the Vampire, Hunter, Mig 15 and Sabre incorporated a lot of design features pioneered by the Me262. The most advanced feature about jets of the time were, not surprisingly, their jet engines and they were the shortcoming of the 262 because they required so much maintenance. The 262s engines incorporated a lot of design features penned by Whittle. In short the Me 262 did see service first but it was not a leader in jet engine technology. Posted by Kelly on 09/11/2013 11:47:31: The programme is very biased towards us Brits. I suppose we need to remember when Britian was a World leader in the world of aviation . Yes and about time too. Ian Edited By Ian Jones on 17/11/2013 16:17:15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.