Microsoft's Paul Allen's Me-262 Landmark Restoration

I may have missed this scanning through the posts but are they sticking with the original 004 engines? or going to modernize the 004 to be a little more “user friendly”? or use something along the lines of the new production 262’s?

I was very privaleged to visit JME Engineering last night… It’s such an amazing place!!! The 262 restoration is well underway now! I’ve seen it a couple of times… once at the very start a couple of years ago and then again last night. I can’t wait to see the fully restored plane! I saw the FW190 just before it was being shipped a couple of years ago. Absolutely superb!

I took some pictures but am not allowed to publish them online unfortunately… 🙁
You’re in for a real treat when the 262 is finished though!! 🙂

Oh and, according to the man in charge, it is still about 75 – 80% original… There are some parts that have to be made again unfortunately but that’s the way the cookie crumbles… especially when you’re making it airworthy again don’t forget!!

Thats good then, seeing as they are actually his…..

Now you have lost me, at the end of the day this will still be an original Me262, admitedly with some new parts built to manufacturers drawings or replicated from pattern parts, but then this would happen during its time in service, so it would never be as original as it was the day it rolled out of the factory… This process is brining life back into a once proud warbird as opposed to it sitting silently in the corner of a museum gathering dust. As for market value, this is such a specialist machine that it will only ever be worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. The new build 262’s are a great achievement but they will always be replicas (with modern engines)

That is something that applies to anything collectable, it’s only worth what a collector is willing to pay for it.

Thanks, all, most illuminating.

…at the end of the day this will still be an original Me262, admittedly with some new parts built to manufacturers drawings or replicated from pattern parts, but then this would happen during its time in service, so it would never be as original as it was the day it rolled out of the factory… This process is brining life back into a once proud warbird as opposed to it sitting silently in the corner of a museum gathering dust. As for market value, this is such a specialist machine that it will only ever be worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. The new build 262’s are a great achievement but they will always be replicas (with modern engines)

Tsk. Them prejudicial adjectives… 😉 I do like it when (inevitably) anything put in a museum is ‘gathering dust’ – a nice case of showing a bias. (This would be as against all those airworthy aircraft wrecked.)

(As someone who volunteers to clean some museum aircraft, dust it ain’t but crud from the airfield outside as a rule.) You may as well say ‘to protect it from pilots breaking it’, which at least is part of the museum’s mandate. If you aren’t preserving, then the demonstration and entertainment parts of the museum’s job are on thin ice. The ‘dust-gathering’ museums are there for holding the type for research and understanding when the last airworthy P-51 is grounded / lost, in 20 – 50 – 250 years time. That’s the theory anyway.

Be that as it may; a restoration to flight always removes original and preservable parts of the artefact; usually being dumped rather than retained. That is, unarguably, detracting from the originality of that aircraft/artefact.

The ‘replacement bits just like in service’ is a common but false argument – the replacement parts in service are part of the artefact’s history, not its period in preservation. The history of a 262 is of the German technological developments, Luftwaffe use and to a degree, post-war Allied evaluation. The work of ‘conservitors’ should be invisible behind those, while ‘restorers’ will have to destroy some originality for airworthy rebuilds – that’s a trade off some organisation think worthwhile, others don’t. Both are, at times, ‘right’.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with restoring an aircraft to flight, and I’m right behind that. But don’t be fooled that it’s the ‘best’ form of preservation – it’s one of several, and ideally we need both safe grounded versions, as original as possible, and airworthy ones to show what it smelled and sounded like. For me the most unfortunate is a so-called airworthy standard restoration that never flies. Why not properly preserve the original, rather than making it a modern replication, or fly the thing?

From the compressor technology perspective the early German He s8 was a centrifugal compressor type and it’s performance was rapidly exceeded by the 003/004 developments. Now the amount of thrust you can get out of an engine is a function of the temperature of the gas in the turbine (aka ‘TET’.. the hotter it is the higher its exhaust exit velocity) and the mass flow. So if you need high thrust and your TET is significantly limited by your materials technology, then you have to start looking at mass flow. A very good way of achieving a much higher mass flow is with an axial flow compressor. By way of an example, the W2 Welland mass flow was 12kg/sec where as the 004 mass flow was 21kg/sec.

As they say “Necessity is the mother of all invention” .

This was the bit I was wondering about.

My point regarding the British German design paths was based on the idea that if you were on the defensive, technologically, then ‘simpler’ was better – and that was my understanding of centrifugal rather than axial. You’ve illustrated the hard choices better than I remembered or previously understood. Thanks.

For real “sound engineering” terms you should look at the number of different component types and their relative complexity for the two engine types. Axial compressor blades were produced by a deep drawing forging process similar to that used in producing brass ammunition cartridge casings…… so plenty of production capacity there then. Now we just have the one very complex forging for the centrifugal compressor compared against the seven different relatively simple forgings for the axial compressor disc. It end ends up as a pretty “swings and roundabouts” type argument.

I do accept the axial was a very much more complex design exercise. However if your forced into a situation of either having a simple but poor performing centrifugal design (about half the thrust of the 004) or a complex but adequate performance from axial flow then there is only one real course open to you.

There’s a technical lesson here that the Allies won W.W.II with ‘adequate’ but not spectacular technology (the Sherman tank, much Russian technology, the centrifugal dead-end jet) but in big numbers while the Germans were always hoping there was a ‘miracle weapon’ around the corner. Even, I suggest if they’d had the atomic bomb, they’d still have lost, at a higher cost.

Having the ‘best’ isn’t as useful as having ample (and more coming) of the ‘adequate’.

Cheers,

Another Me-262 story from Hans Busch, original Me-262 pilot:

As with most all WWII tricycle landing gear aircraft, the nose wheel on the Me-262 was not at all steerable, but rather was just castoring. This proved problematical in some instances (U.S. P-38s, P-39s and P-63s shared in this problem). I’ll have to check my Dad’s old flight manuals, but I believe that the Boeing B-29 had an actual small steering wheel for nose-wheel steering. I know for a fact that the later connotation, the C-97, had such a steering wheel.

If the nose wheel on the Me-262 got cocked too much during ground maneuvering, the nose wheel had to be straightend out first or damage could occur from further taxiing.

This apparently occurred frequently in the Me-262. Hans related that he occasionally encountered this problem and had to climb out of the cockpit, engines running, and manually pull and pry the nose wheel back into alignment himself before proceeding!

Best,
– octane130 –

That does somewhat ignore the operational reality – i.e constant bombing raids on Germany – the destruction of the German manufacturing effort and the fact that the Allies were not about to give the Germans a few years more grace to further develop the Me262 engine along with a whole host of other weapons. Operational necessity dictated the introduction to service of the 262 – ready or not!

Obviously,that is why the bombing was carried out;) but that is irrelevant to what I was saying!!
One could equally speculate that the Luftwaffe would have been better off with lots more (say) long nose 190’s or TA152’s etc,the German Aircraft procurement system was even more political and fragmented than ours and they wasted years trying to develop troublesome projects.
I have no doubt that the 262 was an effective combat aircraft in the hands of an experienced pilot,who might even get 25 hours life out of an engine by careful throttle handling,but they were running out of experienced pilots by 1944-5.A combat aircraft needs to have safe handling and reasonable engine handling for the less experienced!!

That does somewhat ignore the operational reality – i.e constant bombing raids on Germany – the destruction of the German manufacturing effort and the fact that the Allies were not about to give the Germans a few years more grace to further develop the Me262 engine along with a whole host of other weapons. Operational necessity dictated the introduction to service of the 262 – ready or not!

Hi VEGA

I am not disagreeing with your description of the relative merits of the types of engines involved,I am saying that the 262 engine was nowhere near production standard and as such was totally unsuitable for its intended purpose.

i.e. as an operational engine it was as much use as a chocolate teapot;)

I still tend to agree with JDK on this for sound engineering reasons……

Moving/critical parts on Centrifugal Jet = about 4 !!;)

Moving/critical parts on Axial engine = about 6000 !! 😉

Cheers Baz

Ah ….No

You have supported your argument by not comparing eggs with eggs…… To get “4” components on the Centrifugal type you have counted the turbine wheel as a single assembly of piece parts and on the axial type to make up the “6000” you’ve counted the sum of all its piece parts! ……..Inconsistent arguments have no value in “sound engineering” terms.

For real “sound engineering” terms you should look at the number of different component types and their relative complexity for the two engine types. Axial compressor blades were produced by a deep drawing forging process similar to that used in producing brass ammunition cartridge casings…… so plenty of production capacity there then. Now we just have the one very complex forging for the centrifugal compressor compared against the seven different relatively simple forgings for the axial compressor disc. It end ends up as a pretty “swings and roundabouts” type argument.

I do accept the axial was a very much more complex design exercise. However if your forced into a situation of either having a simple but poor performing centrifugal design (about half the thrust of the 004) or a complex but adequate performance from axial flow then there is only one real course open to you.

Fascinating stuff, thanks.

Simplistically, it would’ve been better for the Germans to have tried to get the (then-) British style centrifugal flow jets to work with their lower requirement of higher technologies and materials, while the Allies were better placed to get the (then-) German style axial jets to work well.

Better and more technical explanations and corrections from the knowledgeable engineers here most welcome!

Cheers,

I still tend to agree with JDK on this for sound engineering reasons……

Moving/critical parts on Centrifugal Jet = about 4 !!;)

Moving/critical parts on Axial engine = about 6000 !! 😉

but seriously the blade technology for axial engines was/is critical and complex and took many years to really master,they did not have the materials or the time to sort it out.On www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com if you go to ‘control tower’ there are 2 articles,one by Fritz Wendel and the other by Hans Fay who did production testing of 262’s and gives a good idea of the production ‘quality’ standard of 262 a/c towards the end of the war,not much on engine handling but enough to point to their fragility.

Cheers Baz

Here’s another story from Hans Busch, original Me-262 pilot:

Hans once experienced a right engine failure upon take-off. He was still on the runway, but had already past the “point of no return.” He was veering to the right towards a building and had to make the decision whether to go through the building or over it. Hans chose to go over it, although he didn’t have enough speed to maintain flight. He yanked the jet over the building, just clearing it, but the aircraft stalled, dropping the left wing. The jet impacted the ground really hard in a horrendous crash and cartwheeled through many revolutions. Parts of the aircraft were strewn over hundreds of yards. Basically, just the little cockpit section remained in one piece. Damage to Hans? Just a knocked-up kneecap; he was back on flight status in just a few weeks. The “meat wagon” arrived at the crash site, fully expecting to pick up the pieces of Hans. No such luck, Hans even insisted on sitting in the front seat of the meat wagon for the ride back. He attributes his survival to the fact that the Me-262 had a very strong cockpit section that was designed to be suitable for pressurization at a future date.

Best,
– octane130 –

Fascinating stuff, thanks.

Simplistically, it would’ve been better for the Germans to have tried to get the (then-) British style centrifugal flow jets to work with their lower requirement of higher technologies and materials, while the Allies were better placed to get the (then-) German style axial jets to work well.

Better and more technical explanations and corrections from the knowledgeable engineers here most welcome!

Cheers,

Ah…….No,

From the material perspective the difference between a centrifugal compressor and axial is the compressor configuration and the main material used for both the types ( in the early years) was aluminum alloy. This was not in critically short supply to the Germans.

Now the design requirements for the hot section i.e. combustion chamber, nozzle guide vanes, turbine and turbine disc are, for all significant intent, common to both engine types. This was where the Germans lack of access to high temperature alloy constituents such as Nickel, Chrome and Cobalt was a real draw back. I understand the Germans used low alloy carbon steel coated with baked on aluminum paint for most of the other high temp components where as the Brits used early versions of Cobalt enhanced stainless steel alloys.

From the compressor technology perspective the early German He s8 was a centrifugal compressor type and it’s performance was rapidly exceeded by the 003/004 developments. Now the amount of thrust you can get out of an engine is a function of the temperature of the gas in the turbine (aka ‘TET’.. the hotter it is the higher its exhaust exit velocity) and the mass flow. So if you need high thrust and your TET is significantly limited by your materials technology, then you have to start looking at mass flow. A very good way of achieving a much higher mass flow is with an axial flow compressor. By way of an example, the W2 Welland mass flow was 12kg/sec where as the 004 mass flow was 21kg/sec.

As they say “Necessity is the mother of all invention” .

That is the website I was looking for. Took a bit from an Air and Space article, googled it up and ended up at the Stormbirds site. It is a very good read, lots of good pics of 262s

Thanks for sharing. Looking forward to hearing more. Recently read an article on the team tasked with “acquiring” high tech aircraft as the war was winding down. Find, ground check em and fly them West! Crazy and dangerous! Pilots were impressed with the smooth POWER of the 262, though lining up to land again was a different matter!. I will look for the article and give info on where to find it. Believe it was Smithsonian Air and Space.

On www.stormbirds.com/squadron there is some history on ‘Watsons Whizzers’ the US team tasked with ‘aquiring’ the 262’s,there will be i am sure loads of other stuff on the net about them.

JDK is absolutely correct in what he says about the 262 engines,the germans really were trying to run before they could walk.In this country Whittle had already foreseen all the logical developments in gas turbines but he was a very practical engineer(ex Halton brat of course!!) and realised the pitfalls of rushing into axial flow engines.
I also think there was more than one reason for the engines short life,obviously lack of advanced alloys etc,possible(actually probable!!) sabotage by slave labour,also these engines were very complicated to operate with no automatic limiters or protection devices and the extra control for the ‘sliding cone’ must have made engine handling ‘interesting’
I always puzzled why the 262 did not have Airbrakes/Speedbrakes….very slippery airframe which surely would have been a tactical disadvantage and also tricky for slowing down to Flap/Gear speed for the circuit.

Some more information on Paul Allen’s collection.

The Flying Heritage Collection is in the middle of moving their operation to Paine Field Airport, Everett, Washington, so this would be their priority at this time. It is interesting to note that reports say the Collection have TWELVE aircraft under restoration and a further TWELVE waiting to be restored. Waiting to be restored is a Mosquito and as the majority of restorations are to FLYING condition, this would be a very welcome addition.

Not completed and owned by FHC for some years. They have however purchased the D-13 recently which was on display at the Museum of Flight, I was referring to the A-5

Dave

There was an article in Aeroplane Monthly last year about the restoration, so it would be public domain.
I think you will find that the FW190 has flown to another warmer location, in the US to be finished- Gosshawk Unlimited Case Grande, Arizona.There were recent pictures of it in Warbirds International.MRP

Yes, apparently this completed FW190 restoration has also been recently purchased by Mr. Paul Allen. This means that there are good things to come regarding this aircraft’s future display/flying status. Mr. Allen is really, really low-key regarding his WWII aircraft acquisitions/restorations, but his unique and heartfelt “deep pockets” dedication to WWII aircraft preservation demands high commendation from us warbird enthusiasts :).

– octane130 –

More pics or links for this restoration please 🙂

I am sure that this has been said before, but returning an original aircraft to airworthy condition will most certainly mean removing and replacing many of the original parts. Surely a better solution, indeed a cheaper one, would be the purchase of one of the resent Me262 reconstructions. I have no problem with Mr Allen owning and restoring his collection of aircraft, and I hope that he continues to invest in aviation hertiage, but the work being carried out on the Me262 will probalbly make it less valuable.

DOUGHNUT

I don’t think you have to be too concerned when it comes to Mr Allen, the Fw190 is close to 90% original, (Bruce can correct me here) so no doubt the 262 will be finished in a similar way ( although as a fighter, not a recce bird as it was when captured))

Dave