WHIF Early Navy Jet-Fighter

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm wondering if it was physically possible for the US Navy to have gotten a jet into the air earlier than early 1945?  I know the J30 began it's first runs in March of 1943.  I'm wondering if they could have gotten a jet into the air by mid 1943 to 1944?

[Weaver]

Probably only by using British centrifugal engines. Assuming that Meteor and Vampire configurations were deemed unsuitable, your best bet might be to make something like an underpowered Grumman Panther with an early DH Goblin engine..... Even so, that wouldn't be much different, in production terms, to the P-80. That didn't manage to get into service before late 1945, and it didn't have to do carrier trials either.....

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver,

The J30 began development in early 1942, was available in early 1943, so why would it be hard to get an airplane built around those two engines?

[Cliffy B]

Remember a lot about jet design and development was learned AFTER the war when we captured some Me-262s and German scientists.  Rushing one into service before 45 prob would have resulted in an inferior jet that would have gotten its rear kicked by piston fighters.  If you want an early jet look at Heinkel's first jet built BEFORE the war and at the P-59 Airacomet.

[PR19_Kit]

The J30 began development in early 1942, was available in early 1943, so why would it be hard to get an airplane built around those two engines?

KJ,

At that time the J30, while being an axial design, only produced about 1550 lbs thrust compared to the 1700 lbs or so of the R-R Welland, let alone the 2000 lbs of the R-R Derwent. Power was everything then, just as it is now.

[rickshaw]

Several factors held back jet engine development - metallurgy being the main one.  It was hard to make the fan blades strong enough and hard enough not to melt.  This was what really delayed jet engine development both in the UK and Germany.

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR-19 Kit,

At that time the J30, while being an axial design, only produced about 1550 lbs thrust compared to the 1700 lbs or so of the R-R Welland, let alone the 2000 lbs of the R-R Derwent. Power was everything then, just as it is now.

Yeah, but didn't the J30 when used on the FH-1 produce the same amount of thrust?

[apophenia]

PR-19 Kit,

At that time the J30, while being an axial design, only produced about 1550 lbs thrust compared to the 1700 lbs or so of the R-R Welland, let alone the 2000 lbs of the R-R Derwent. Power was everything then, just as it is now.

Yeah, but didn't the J30 when used on the FH-1 produce the same amount of thrust?

The FH-1's J30-WE-20 produced 1600 lb.st at best but that was after March 1945. The prototype XFD-1 flew in Jan 1945 on a single, rather anemic Westinghouse pre-production engine (19XB-2B, producing only 1165 lb.st).

[KJ_Lesnick]

Why didn't Nathan C. Price propose his jet-engine design to the US Navy, and just the US Army?

[apophenia]

Probably because he had connection with the Army dating back to his Doble steam turbine days.

As rickshaw said, the limitation on early jets wasn't really their designs, it was metallurgy. In any case, since Price's L1000/XJ37-1 project dragged out until 1953 without bearing any fruit, how would shifting to his design have helped?

Meanwhile, the US was cranking out licenced British centrifugal jet engine designs without problem. You want to whif a realistic earlier USN jet fighter, look to Halford et al. Otherwise, just whif the axial's metallurgical problems away.

[jcf]

Probably because he had connection with the Army dating back to his Doble steam turbine days.

As rickshaw said, the limitation on early jets wasn't really their designs, it was metallurgy. In any case, since Price's L1000/XJ37-1 project dragged out until 1953 without bearing any fruit, how would shifting to his design have helped?

Meanwhile, the US was cranking out licenced British centrifugal jet engine designs without problem. You want to whif a realistic earlier USN jet fighter, look to Halford et al. Otherwise, just whif the axial's metallurgical problems away.

Don't forget the Metrovick axial engines, which led to the A-S 'Gem' series, they are also 'war period' and production whiffable.

Anyhow calling Price's engine an 'axial' flow design is an oversimplification, it was ridiculously
overcomplicated and originally had a axial compressor followed by a reciprocating compressor (WTF!).
The design was simplified ( ) in 1943 with an axial-flow compressor followed by three centrifugal
compressors with inter-cooling between each stage and hydraulic couplings (my head hurts) finally they got
to a design with two 16-stage compressors with reduced inter-cooling but still with hydraulic couplings ...
admittedly that was an advanced feature, however it added more complexity at a time when less was needed.
By the end of the war of the 'definitive' prototype was still incomplete.
Even in Whif world the Price engine is a dead end.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Apophenia,

Probably because he had connection with the Army dating back to his Doble steam turbine days.

Entirely possible.  I'm still surprised that he wouldn't have tried submitting a design to the Navy also, the more people you submit a concept to, the more likely one will pick up your idea.  

As rickshaw said, the limitation on early jets wasn't really their designs, it was metallurgy. In any case, since Price's L1000/XJ37-1 project dragged out until 1953 without bearing any fruit, how would shifting to his design have helped?

The Navy might have pushed for a simpler design.  The Navy already had experience with turbine-based propulsion, albeit steam-turbines in ships.  Still, I could very well be wrong, but they might have realized it was too ambitious

Meanwhile, the US was cranking out licenced British centrifugal jet engine designs without problem.

I can't argue with that.

You want to whif a realistic earlier USN jet fighter, look to Halford et al. Otherwise, just whif the axial's metallurgical problems away.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm surprised the US Navy didn't also just license built some British engines while simultaneously developing their own J30...

[KJ_Lesnick]

JCF,

Anyhow calling Price's engine an 'axial' flow design is an oversimplification

I suppose you're correct!  I suppose one could say, it started out as an axial-flow gas-turbine/piston hybrid at first; then a twin-spool, mixed-flow turbojet; finally an axial-flow twin-spool design

it was ridiculously overcomplicated and originally had a axial compressor followed by a reciprocating compressor (WTF!).

Yeah, it had a very strange set-up.  The reason for the unusual design had to do with the fact that Nathan C. Price wanted to keep the SFC figures as close as possible to a piston engine.  In hindsight, it wasn't really necessary, though in truth, I don't know if the military would have considered the higher SFC figures of a turbojet-engine to have been acceptable back in 1938 (Price began developing his design at that point in time).

The design was simplified ( ) in 1943 with an axial-flow compressor followed by three centrifugal compressors with inter-cooling between each stage and hydraulic couplings (my head hurts)

The "simplification" which you describe occurred in the spring of 1942.  While it was not explicitly stated, it would appear that Nathan C. Price was developing his engine for Lockheed's L-133 design starting in 1939 (Lockheed began developing the L-133 in 1939), though it wasn't until 1941 that he was actually working for Lockheed itself (I assume at that point the engine was finally designated the L-1000).

finally they got to a design with two 16-stage compressors with reduced inter-cooling but still with hydraulic couplings ... admittedly that was an advanced feature, however it added more complexity at a time when less was needed.

That was in mid-1943.  Ironically, USAAF actually asked Price for a more advanced design...