| QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ Mar 20 2006, 11:00 AM) |
| Me 260 jet fighters |
Are those fighters licence produced at IAR Brasov?
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Modelling & Art > WWII Romanian Jet fighters |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino March 20, 2006 11:00 am |
| Lt Greceanu leading his squadron of Me 260 jet fighters in home defense. Source: http://home.wanadoo.nl/r.j.o/skyraider/mep1070_2.htm http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino March 20, 2006 12:05 pm | ||
http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino March 20, 2006 12:19 pm | ||
http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: Iamandi March 20, 2006 01:03 pm |
| I saw this "pictures" at www.luft46.com from some time a go. They are nice. If i remember right, in one fictional book it is a short story with this planes under romanian flag. Iama |
| Posted by: Florin March 20, 2006 05:18 pm |
| But in the real world the things were so secretive, that when the Italians, including Mussolini, proudly made propaganda around the successful flight of the thermo-jet designed by Caprini (the flights were in July 1940), they did not know that their good ally Germany tested in flight a real turbojet almost one year earlier (in August 1939). Returning to fiction and alternative worlds, what can greater than imagine tens of Coanda thermo-jets in the sky during World War One. But I doubt they would be able to make any impact to the battleground, the same way as in the next war (World War Two) the Me-262 could not stop the Western Allies. |
| Posted by: mabadesc March 20, 2006 07:33 pm | ||
The Me-262 did not make a large-scale impact in the outcome of the war because it came too late and in numbers that were not nearly large enough. Had it become operational in significant numbers just a few months earlier, however, I think it would have caused tremendous problems to the Western Allies. |
| Posted by: C-2 March 20, 2006 09:16 pm |
| Especialy armed with 4RMZ rockets. |
| Posted by: Florin March 21, 2006 01:40 pm | ||
From statistics, less than a quarter of Me-262 (maybe less than a fifth) were assigned to be fighters. The others were wasted for tasks which may be delegated to other planes. In the days of the German counter-offensive in Normandy, at the beginning of August 1944, the heavy tanks went to combat without aerial protection. I could not understand why the 100 Me-262 already deployed were not used for this aerial protection. |
| Posted by: mabadesc March 21, 2006 06:27 pm | ||||
Are you referring to Hitler's obstinacy in assigning the Me-262 as a fighter-bomber? If so, then I completely agree with you, the Me-262 should have been employed as a pure fighter for aerial dominance, not as a bomber or ground attack craft.
I think it's because by that time the Allies had complete aerial supremacy over the Northern France battle theater, and if these 100 jets had been committed, they would not have made a difference and would have been destroyed in short order. Instead, the Germans chose to move their armor at night or during bad weather. The Me-262's were kept for defence of the homeland, so that factories could keep manufacturing additional war materiel and especially additional fighter planes in numbers that would have been sufficient to put up a serious fight. You are correct to ask the question, though. I am sure it was frustrating for many germans to watch their tanks and trucks being attacked and destroyed from the air while their own fighters did not offer any aerial cover. On the other hand, though, they were trying to build up their number of planes instead of committing them piecemeal to certain destruction. Take care. |
| Posted by: SiG March 21, 2006 08:46 pm | ||
Are those fighters licence produced at IAR Brasov? |
| Posted by: C-2 March 21, 2006 10:20 pm |
Actualy those are luftwaffe surplus.  |
| Posted by: Radub March 22, 2006 09:54 am |
Actually they are a Romanian design that the Germans plagiarised (like Maresal).  BTW: The colours are wrong. It is plainly obvious.  Radu |
| Posted by: Florin March 22, 2006 05:33 pm | ||||||
I handled in a library a book dedicated to Luftwaffe, which shown with accuracy how many Me-262 were assigned to be fighters, compared with the total, by February 1945. That was one of the reasons for Galland to voice his dissapprovement with Goering, and he lost his function and got a minor one, mostly honorific, until the end of the war. (But anyway, it could be worse... At least he was not arrested).
This works during defensive. But that operation (Argentan-Falaise) started as a major German offensive, in daylight all day long. To be short (because it is out of topic) that operation was an epic massacre of the German armor, and tank aces like Wittman ended killed by the bombs dropped from air. The bomb that hit his Tiger-I dropped in the hulk area in the rear of the turret, where the horizontal armor was only 20 mm. |
| Posted by: Treize March 22, 2006 08:10 pm |
| What are those bombers they're attacking? Look like Pe-8s in a USAAF box formation... |
| Posted by: SiG March 22, 2006 10:00 pm | ||
On the website those pictures are originally taken from, it says they are supposed to be soviet bombers. Nothing about the exact type. And the formation does look like an american box formation. |
| Posted by: Agarici March 22, 2006 10:04 pm |
| Four-engine Soviet bombers...?!? |
| Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu March 22, 2006 10:24 pm |
| Pe-8 |
| Posted by: bansaraba January 01, 2009 03:59 pm |
| I wonder if the jet engine invented by Henri Coanda in 1910, with the body and weapons of 1939-1941 could have been competitive in WWII. |
| Posted by: Radub January 02, 2009 10:17 am | ||
Oh boy! Coanda did not "invent" the jet. He was not even the first to come up with the idea of a turbine, or even a gas propelled turbine. Steam powered turbines existed for at least 16 years by then. (Google Turbinia) What Coanda tested (with Campini's help, a fact that is conveniently "forgotten" or "ignored" by the Romanians) was a ducted fan with afterburner - let us not forget that he used a 4-cylinder engine to provide the rotation force that turned the ducted fan. On a real jet, the rotation is provided by a turbine turned by a jet of hot gases. Coanda figured out that he was on to a loser and gave it up to work on a range of very successful projects. Campini kept trying and only about 20 years later he managed to complete the engine, which turned out to be a failure. Google Campini. Coanda failed. No jet was successful until late 30s. The first patent for a jet engine was granted to Von Ohain in 1936. I said it before, had Coanda invented the "jet engine" in 1910, World War 1 would have been fought by jet fighters. Coanda has a plethora of other real achievements on his panoply for which he deserves a lot of praise and recognotion. The Coanda Effect is much much much more significant for the aviation (and not only) industry than his failed attempt to create a "ducted fan with afterburner" engine. Radu |
| Posted by: bansaraba January 02, 2009 12:55 pm |
| Thanks for your answer. It seems that I should look to Coanda's work from another perspective. But, you know, the Romanian books almost invariably say the same thing and nothing else (maybe in the 2000s things changed). |
| Posted by: lancer21 September 17, 2010 08:30 pm | ||||
Sorry ? Campini helped Coanda with the "turbine"?! I did a quick google on "Campini" as you suggested , and if its the same guy who you are talking about ( Secondo Campini?), well he was born in 1904! Can i ask what is your source for the above post ? Would be interesting to know ...  |
| Posted by: Radub September 19, 2010 05:39 pm | ||
Apologies for the confusion. I meant Caproni. Caproni was a close friend of Coanda's (Coanda was even his best man at his wedding). It was a "slip" of the keyboard, it happens. Caproni worked closely with Coanda on a number of designs. Nevertheless (you may be relieved to know) the connection betweeen Campini and Coanda via Caproni still remains. Caproni Campini N1 was a "propellerless" plane finally flown in 1940. This was based on an idea similar to Coanda's, i.e. a ducted fan powered by an in-line engine. It clearly demonstrated that such an engine was quite weak and nothing too exciting (apart from not actually being a "jet engine" as such). But, you probably came across that already when you googled the name Campini.  Trust me, I know a thing or two about Coanda. Not so long ago I was involved in a large project relating to him. HTH Radu |
| Posted by: Skyraider3D October 04, 2010 10:09 pm |
| Hi guys, I just happened upon this topic through Google. I created these images of the Me P.1070 (AKA "Me 260") many years ago for a book with what-if Luftwaffe stories by John Baxter. Indeed the Soviet bombers are Pe-8s. The formation is semi-random, I put no real thought into it other for it to look interesting. From what I've read about Soviet formation flying during WW2, this might actually not be too far from the truth  My inspiration came from formations of B-17s, so that's probably why it looks a bit like American box formations perhaps, but this is not intentional.Here's the current webpage dedicated to these images: http://digitalaviationart.com/skyraider3d/mep1070_1.htm One of the images is available as print, by the way: http://www.digitalaviationart.com/zazzle/hypothetical.php |
| Posted by: cmc October 05, 2010 05:00 pm |
| ^^ Holy cow... those are wonderful... |
| Posted by: Florin October 07, 2010 04:16 am | ||||
No, actually they were used and refurbished planes sold to Romania in 1953. Few of them saw combat action during the modest Romanian contribution into the war between Germany and Japan, in 1960. Unfortunately, after their assigned airport in Thailand was bombed, only one plane was able to perform the return flight to Romania. |
| Posted by: Agarici October 07, 2010 10:21 am | ||||||
I beg your pardon...?   |
| Posted by: C-2 October 07, 2010 10:40 am |
| I didn't know Romania participated so activ in that war. I heard only about logistics and staff. |
| Posted by: Florin October 07, 2010 05:39 pm | ||
Did you read the science fiction novel "The Man in the High Castle" / "Omul din castelul inalt" ? It was also translated in Romanian, by Nemira. In the novel Germany and Japan, the winners of World War II, were not in war, but watching each over with a dose of mistrust and reciprocal despise. In that action, there was a rift in the leadership of Nazi Party. One faction wanted a surprise thermonuclear attack against Japan, the other wanted the maintaining of the status quo. Meanwhile the German astronauts were pinning the swastika on Moon and Mars - huge expenses just for propaganda reasons. |
| Posted by: Agarici October 07, 2010 06:29 pm | ||||
On Mars? Didn't they get to put a man (or an "uber"-man, that is  ) on the Sun, too? At night, of course, in order not to melt... |
| Posted by: Florin October 08, 2010 05:07 am | ||||||
I am assuming you know that the same team of German scientists who designed the V-2 designed also the Saturn rocket who propelled the Apollo missions to Moon, and the rockets who sent unmanned equipment to Mars in the 1970's. In the days of the Apollo missions, the chief of the medical research of NASA was a German doctor. Later the medals and honorific titles he obtained in America were withdrawn on the reason that he was also a doctor in a Nazi concentration camp. There were attempts to tarnish the memory of von Braun as well, on the reason that V-2's were built by detainees under the supervision of SS, but eventually it was decided that America owns him too much for the Apollo program. By the way, "Agarici", it was technically possible to send a man to Mars since the 1970's - it was just too expensive to do it. If Soviet Union and the U.S. wouldn't waste money for nukes, tanks, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, we would have astronauts on Mars decades ago. But from a realistic point of view, these money could have better usage right here on Earth. |
| Posted by: Florin October 08, 2010 05:35 am | ||
Yes, but he discovered the Coanda Effect after he was intrigued why the flames of his engine had the tendency to flow alongside the fuselage, even though they were exhausted at an angle, to avoid this. So the "failed attempt", as you call it, was the root of his discovery. I am finding unfortunate you tendency to settle on the same level Coanda and the Italian designers who repeated his idea 30 years later. Those 30 years were a huge leap in aviation technology. What made Coanda a genius for doing it 1910, was not a great deal to be repeated in 1940. Also, Coanda already built and tested his jet powered plane by 1910, in France, while Giovanni Battista Caproni designed his first airplane in 1911 (a classical design with propeller), and that was in Italy. From France Coanda left to Great Britain, where for a while was the chief engineer at Bristol aircraft company. Meanwhile Giovanni Battista Caproni was doing his work in Italy. How could you mention that Coanda was helped by Giovanni Battista Caproni to design and build his jet plane? As a Romanian, for what you wrote you should feel some shame. At least a little bit... |
| Posted by: Radub October 08, 2010 08:51 am |
| Florin, Sadly, you are the victim of misinformation, just like millions of Romanians. The Coanda 1910 aeroplane did not fly. Coanda presented it at the Paris Exhibition and it was hailed as the "Sensation of the Exhibition". It was photographed by the major newspapers. It was described by the major newspapers with sensational accolades. It was indeed a sensation. No one could get enough of it. It was the "iPad" of its day. BUT Newspaper reports of that day state that the aircraft was sold at the show to a Monsieur Weymann, BEFORE it was test-flown. That is the last mention of it in the press of the day. Then... silence. Mr. Weymann was one of the most famous test pilots of his day. There is no record of a flight by Mr. Weymann in that aircraft. LATER In the sixties, Henri Coanda, stated in an interview that "After the show, he flew the Coanda 1910 JET over Paris walls and took off from Issy-les-Moulineaux airfield. The flames from the JET engine AFTERBURNER stuck to the sides of the aircraft on take-off, the aicraft subsequently caught fire and crashed". In the interview, Coanda stated that Bleriot was present when this flight took place. He only stated that once, in an interview to the Romanian television. The interview is on YouTube, watch it, it is rambling and disjointed, very incoherent. After this interview, the subject was taken by the Romanian propaganda machine and blown out of all proportions. That was the start of this "Coanda invented the jet engine" myth. OK Let's take all of these one by one: - He flew the aircraft after the show. How? He sold it to the one of the most famous pilots of the day. How did Coanda have access to the aircraft that he already sold to Weymann? Did Weymann allow him to fly it? Coanda did not have a pilot's licence. Weymann did. It just does not add up. - The Coanda 1910 aircraft was already famous. Everyone wanted to know about it. Coanda was hungry for media attention. He was a good self-publicist. He would not have missed an opportunity to promote his aircraft and himself. He would have called all the press (who already publicised his aircraft) to witness his triumph. There was no mention in the press about such a flight. It just does not add up. - There is no mention in any book about Bleriot to state that Bleriot witnessed such a historic flight. It just does not add up. - Issey-les-Moulineaux was owned by the French Army. It was used as a test ground for all sorts of aircraft. All flights took place with explicit permission from the Army. There is no record of such permission for the Coanda 1910 flight. It just does not add up. - Issey-les-Moulineaux was the primary European flying test ground. Anyone who was anyone in aviation at that time flew there. The budding aviation press of the time literally camped there and photographed/recorded everything that flew. They were the "spotters" of the day. There is no record of the Coanda 1910 flight. I imagine that a flight of a "propeller-less aircraft that subsequently caught fire" would not go unreported. It just does not add up. - The AFTERBURNER that Coanda referred to is just daft. There was no mention of it until that fateful interview. He suggested that fuel was injected into the turbine and set alight. One - that would not provide any extra propelling force, anyone who understands jet engines knows that setting the engine on fire does not provide extra thrust. Two - His "propeller-less engine " was just a ducted fan powered by a four-cylinder petrol engine. The photos of the aircraft show that engine and the circular "bucket" of the "propulsion device" that distributes the thrust rearwards ALL AROUND THE FUSELAGE including the cockpit. If anyone was so suicidally insane as to set alight such a device that would throw flames straight into his face, then he would not really get a chance to observe how the flames stuck to the fuselage, because the same flames would have firmly stuck to his face too. It just does not add up. - According to Coanda, the plane caught fire on take-off. But wait a minute... he just stated that he flew ofver the walls... How? The plane just crashed. It just does not add up. CONCLUSION As someone who knows a lot more about this subject once told me, "Coanda was already losing his marbles when he said this. It was the worst mistake he ever made". Trust me, as I said, I was involved in a major project about Coanda for the last two years. I know what I am talking about. This subject was dissected and analysed by serious aviation historians and researchers. That "flight" never took place. Nu avea cum. I suggest that you read the book about Coanda that was just published by Dan Antoniu this week. It will clarify a lot of things about Coanda. He was a fascinating man and a a true genius. But he did not invent the jet engine. Trust me, saying that does not make me less of a Romanian. It is the mundane reality. The truth frees the mind. Radu |
| Posted by: Dénes October 08, 2010 07:11 pm |
| I've seen a photo in a thick book published in the USA about early French (?) aircraft. On that photo, Coanda's well recognisible propeller-less airplane was shown turned to its side, at about 2-3 m over the ground, obviously about to crash. Perpahs this was the 'leap' Radu talks about. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor October 09, 2010 09:33 am |
| Florin, See this: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=5859 It is the result of a long work by Dan Antoniu, George Cicos and Co. |
| Posted by: Agarici October 09, 2010 11:08 am | ||||||||
Yes, and Hermann Oberth was the scientific consultant for the movie “The Girl on the Moon” in late 1920s - but with what use? Many things, including the pyramids or “Casa Poporului”, were possible in the past, but that question might still be (or had been) asked. As a personal opinion, I’m pretty sure that much of the rationale for the space competition between USA and the USSR was their rivalry in developing strategically capable missiles/vectors and technologies, and the idea with “a man on the moon” was pretty much seen by JFK as a payback for the Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin episode. I wonder how much of this rationale would have survived in a substantially different international politics arrangement. What amused me mostly about the book you’ve mentioned is the extent, in time and details, of this “what if”-type history based on a German victory in WW 2. Wars involving Germany and Japan in 1960’s and a Nazi successful space program? It seems a rather familiar scenario, but with different actors playing the main parts… |
| Posted by: MRX October 09, 2010 03:23 pm | ||
What book? "French Aeroplanes Before the Great War" by Leonard Opdycke? On page 272 a remarkable photograph shows one of the Vuia aeroplanes in a precarious position, not Coanda-1910.  |
| Posted by: Dénes October 09, 2010 06:42 pm |
| Yes, this is the photo I meant. Does the legend call it as Vuia's airplane? If yes, (I saw this book in a bookstore in Toronto about 10 years ago), my memory is playing tricks with me (no wonder). Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Radub October 09, 2010 08:31 pm |
| I need to make a correction. The first written mention of a "flight" by this aircraft appeared in the November 1956 issue of the Royal Air Force Review, which quoted a statement made by Coada. Between 1910 and 1956, there was no mention of such a flight anywhere. Radu |
| Posted by: MRX October 09, 2010 10:05 pm | ||
Yes, it is an Vuia aeroplane.  |
| Posted by: Florin October 10, 2010 04:00 am |
| Radub, "Jet engine" is a very general term. The Chinese who blown himself up in the Middle Ages trying to fly was using rockets with solid fuel (a slower burning variation of gun powder). That was a jet engine. The Romanian Ciurcu and his French friend (Boisson?) were moving a boat on Sena river around 1900 using a tank with compressed air, allowed to exhaust to provide thrust. That was also a jet engine. The system using a four cylinder gasoline engine to drive a turbine expelling burnt gases, installed by Coanda in 1910 on its plane, was also a jet engine. As the idea was repeated 30 years later by the Italians, it seems it made some sense. The pulse jets are also jet engines. The ram jet are also jet engines. And of course, the technology developed by the Germans in the 1930's provided the turbojets. So, as a fact, Coanda built in 1910 the first airplane powered by a jet engine. You mentioned in your notes how much attention this plane attracted at that exhibition in Paris, so it could not go unnoticed by the following series of aeronautical designers. Coanda made noticeable the concept of powering the flight without the need of propeller, and that for 1910 was a big step. His achievement was remarkable anyway. You spent a lot of time to prove that Coanda's plane was never tested. I will make my mind when I will have the chance to see the "thick book" and the photo mentioned by Gen. Denes. From your text: "According to Coanda, the plane caught fire on take-off. But wait a minute... he just stated that he flew over the walls... How? The plane just crashed. It just does not add up." Why it does not add up? A functional thermo-jet engine, all with metalic parts, is accelerating the plane made of flamable materials. The plane lifts but parts of it take fire form the burnt gas, while the all metalic engine keeps working. Then it is all about inertia - the plane can behave like a low performance glider, and occasionaly hover over a wall before crushing. Honestly, the real problem I see is another one. The pilots of 1910 had googles and a leather helmet. They had no closed cockpit and of course no oxygen tube for breathing. If your are correct in your claim that the exhaust muzzles were distributed evenly all around, high velocity gases at high temperature will sufocate the pilot, burn his lungs and also burn his cheeks, arms and palms. When I will have time and the chance I will check your claim about the distribution of the exhaust muzzles. By the way... Talking about jets, priorities and correctitude in achieving them: What do you say about the "first supersonic flight" / "breaking the sound barrier" performed by Charles E. Yeager in 1947 ? A four-engine B-29 bomber is carrying the Bell X-1 plane to 20,000 feet height, an ideal height for a rocket powered plane, and also gives to the Bell X-1 an initial speed of 250 miles per hour before it started its own motor. So the record attempt started at a height of 20,000 feet from an initial 250 miles per hour. What a pity that priority was not made by Romanians. You would have the chance to dismantle and distaste it piece by piece. |
| Posted by: Florin October 10, 2010 04:17 am | ||
Only the small countries are always the same, and squeezed under the boot of the big ones, no matter what Universe we enjoy. P.S.: I answered before to you because you seemed shocked by the idea of German astronauts on Mars. I just reminded that the Germans provided the technology for cosmic space travel, as we know it until now, even in our real world with USA and SU as victors. |
| Posted by: Radub October 10, 2010 08:57 am |
| Florin, You can take a horse to water, but you can't make the horse drink. You are free to believe whatever you want. I can only tell you the facts, it is up to you to learn from them or not. The truth is that there is no evidence that the Coanda 1910 was successful and that it flew. To put in in modern terms, there is a difference between "vaporware" and "hardware". Coanda's 1910 did not manage to make the all-crucial step from "vapourware" to "hardware". It simply did not work. There is no record of a successful trial of that aircraft. If you find such evidence, I can guarantee that you secure your immortality because serious researchers and historians (in Romania, France and Great Britain) have been searching for such evidence for decades and found nothing. As for the "flames" that were allegedly generated by the propulsion device, the French "Patent FR416.541" and the "Additional Patent No. 13.502, to main Patent FR416.541" are published in full in the recent book by Dan Antoniu. There is no description, allusion, innuendo, inference anywhere that fuel or even a spark came anywhere near the propulsion device. The device is described as a "engine powered turbine". A drawing from the patent is included. showing that there was no reason for flames to be blown out by that device. Get that book, read it. Radu |
| Posted by: Radub October 10, 2010 01:45 pm | ||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80 |
| Posted by: Florin October 11, 2010 01:42 am | ||
The part with the immortality I liked it the most. Maybe you remember that in 2003, 100 years from the historical flight of the Wright brothers, the Americans built an identical plane and repeated that take off using the same type of rail for acceleration. The identical replica did not left the ground, not even one inch. (Because they did not make the experiment on the ocean shore of North Carolina, as the Wright brothers. There the strong winds would do the job, not the the 12 HP motor... )A reasonable thing would be that next time when the Romanians have money to waste, instead of building another public fountain with recorded music and lighting show, they could use all blue prints remained from "Coanda 1910" and try to build a 1 : 1 replica as close as possible. Then a public trial of the full scale copy will settle for ever if that design was functional. This functionality of the design is the last thing left, if a real test did not happen in 1910. P.S: I will document myself more about this, when I will have time, as advised. |
| Posted by: Radub October 11, 2010 08:14 am | ||
Please do! You will realise that a veil has been pulled over your eyes and you were lied to for so many years. To quote Morpheus "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." Take the red pill! Radu |
| Posted by: Dénes October 11, 2010 12:03 pm | ||
There is such a full-scale wooden replica (mock-up) already available in one of the museums in Bucharest (and it's huge!). Not in working condition, though. Gen. Dénes |