Timeline of Experimental jet aircraft?

[baldamundo]

(Apologies if I've posted this in the wrong forum. Not sciencey enough to really fit 'The Science Lab', I think, so I wasn't sure)

There's plenty of good timelines for the space-race, documenting all the different rockets one might want to imitate in the VAB, but I've been struggling to find something similar for the parallel race in developing high-performance jet aircraft. I like to have an at least vaguely realistic/historical progression in my career mode games, and I'm often quite at a loss for ideas as to which direction to go with my planes aesthetically, so using historical ones for inspiration is really useful.

The ideal thing would be a timeline that lists in chronological order all the experimental jet aircraft of the era - preferably both Russian and American, and including fighters, reconnaissance, bombers, etc - along with any major landmark they might represent "e.g. first craft to break the sound barrier". And in an ideal world it'd also have pictures, but obviously I can just google them.

Anyway, failing that, can anyone recommend anything similar and just generally any good online resources on the topic?

EDIT: Actually, just found this which might answer my question already, but is at least a good starting point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supersonic_aircraft

Edited September 26, 2015 by baldamundo

[Tweeker]

Not trying to be a smart alec, but are you looking for more on engines or airframes? What are you considering a jet? Thermojet, or motorjets? Or pure turbine jets?

[Bill Phil]

1939-First jet aircraft test flight, Heinkel plane, forgot name, sorry. He178. Pretty basic. Then in 40 or 41 a British jey flew. Sometime later, the He280 prototype fighters were built, but they ended up having problems with the engine, resulting in the Me262 to enter production as the first operational jet fighter in 44 or 45. At the same time the P-80 was developed and tested throughout 43 to 45, and made operational after the war. The Britisg were close, but I don't know much.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Bill Phil

[baldamundo]

Not trying to be a smart alec, but are you looking for more on engines or airframes? What are you considering a jet? Thermojet, or motorjets? Or pure turbine jets?

Sorry - I'm not even knowledgeable enough about this stuff to know what I consider a jet specifically And, uhh, if I've understood the question I guess I mean the airframes more? Like, really I'm interested most in what I can recreate and toy with within KSP, and there's less flexibility for configuring the engines, so too much detail about them would kind of be lost

EDIT: Perhaps it would have been more accurate/precise if I'd said "experimental aeroplanes and spaceplanes" rather than "experimental jet aircraft", because I suppose some of them did use rockets.

Edited September 26, 2015 by baldamundo

[The_Rocketeer]

EDIT: Perhaps it would have been more accurate/precise if I'd said "experimental aeroplanes and spaceplanes" rather than "experimental jet aircraft", because I suppose some of them did use rockets.

Not at all, a rocket engine is by definition a jet engine. It's a common misconception that jets all have to have big turbines on the front.

This is actually a really interesting subject, but it's also incredibly broad and diverse. Jet planes first turn up in production towards the end of WW2, break the sound barrier during the 50s, and some would say peaked with the SR-71 Blackbird, or arguably the STS. Since then performance-boosting innovations either haven't been practically tested or haven't been published, and (almost) certainly haven't entered production.

So I guess mainly you're looking for the prototype/test aircraft between 1940 and 1980. A lot of this stuff is still under the shroud of cold-war secrecy, and there's so much conjecture that the truth is often knee-deep in it.

Along with engine technology, though, keep in mind that wingshapes and aerodynamics had to keep step with innovations as they came. A lot of test aircraft used proven engines to test more subtle or different innovations, like lifting bodies or delta-wings.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Dont miss out on Project Pluto if you are after the most interesting/devestating Aircraft-concepts

Also displayed on the Forum by Neil1993

The use of a nuclear engine in the airframe promised to give the missile staggering and unprecedented low-altitude range, estimated to be roughly 113,000 miles (182,000 km) (over four and a half times the equatorial circumference of the earth). The engine also acted as a secondary weapon for the missile: direct neutron radiation from the virtually unshielded reactor would sicken, injure, and/or kill living things beneath the flight path; the stream of fallout left in its wake would poison enemy territory; and its strategically selected crash site would receive intense radioactive contamination. In addition, the sonic waves given off by its passage would damage ground installations.

[Bill Phil]

Not at all, a rocket engine is by definition a jet engine. It's a common misconception that jets all have to have big turbines on the front.

This is actually a really interesting subject, but it's also incredibly broad and diverse. Jet planes first turn up in production towards the end of WW2, break the sound barrier during the 50s, and some would say peaked with the SR-71 Blackbird, or arguably the STS. Since then performance-boosting innovations either haven't been practically tested or haven't been published, and (almost) certainly haven't entered production.

So I guess mainly you're looking for the prototype/test aircraft between 1940 and 1980. A lot of this stuff is still under the shroud of cold-war secrecy, and there's so much conjecture that the truth is often knee-deep in it.

Along with engine technology, though, keep in mind that wingshapes and aerodynamics had to keep step with innovations as they came. A lot of test aircraft used proven engines to test more subtle or different innovations, like lifting bodies or delta-wings.

If we count the X-1 as a jet aircraft, then they broke the sound barrier in 47. Even the Sabre could go transonic in dives, and I recall it broke the sound barrier in the early 50s.

[The_Rocketeer]

If we count the X-1 as a jet aircraft, then they broke the sound barrier in 47. Even the Sabre could go transonic in dives, and I recall it broke the sound barrier in the early 50s.

Well, I stand corrected. As I said, it's a fascinating and diverse subject, but I'm no kind of expert on aviation history, just an enthusiast!

[baldamundo]

So I guess mainly you're looking for the prototype/test aircraft between 1940 and 1980. A lot of this stuff is still under the shroud of cold-war secrecy, and there's so much conjecture that the truth is often knee-deep in it.

Along with engine technology, though, keep in mind that wingshapes and aerodynamics had to keep step with innovations as they came. A lot of test aircraft used proven engines to test more subtle or different innovations, like lifting bodies or delta-wings.

Yes, I guess this is exactly the sort of thing I'm interested in here - seeing as in KSP you are basically using set engines and playing around with different wing/chassis designs, and also early the cold war period is one that fascinates me just generally tbh

The use of a nuclear engine in the airframe promised to give the missile staggering and unprecedented low-altitude range, estimated to be roughly 113,000 miles (182,000 km) (over four and a half times the equatorial circumference of the earth). The engine also acted as a secondary weapon for the missile: direct neutron radiation from the virtually unshielded reactor would sicken, injure, and/or kill living things beneath the flight path; the stream of fallout left in its wake would poison enemy territory; and its strategically selected crash site would receive intense radioactive contamination. In addition, the sonic waves given off by its passage would damage ground installations.

Jesus Christ, that is terrifying.

By the way, can anyone recommend some good jet engine diversification type mods? The sudden jump from the basic jet to the ramjet seems absurd -136kN to...754kN?! The ....? That's definitely changed since 0.90... I'm already using SETI tech tree which adds a smaller jet before the basic, as well as KAX which adds a lot of prop engines, but not many jet ones, I think

[Bill Phil]

Well, I stand corrected. As I said, it's a fascinating and diverse subject, but I'm no kind of expert on aviation history, just an enthusiast!

That's only if you count the X-1 as a jet aircraft, and even then turbo jet aircraft had trouble going supersonic in level flight until the equal area rule was discovered. I can't recall exactly when that was...

[The_Rocketeer]

That's only if you count the X-1 as a jet aircraft, and even then turbo jet aircraft had trouble going supersonic in level flight until the equal area rule was discovered. I can't recall exactly when that was...

Wikipedia suggests the Germans had cracked this principle before the end of WW2, but the USA got there in 1952.

[Bill Phil]

Wikipedia suggests the Germans had cracked this principle before the end of WW2, but the USA got there in 1952.

Yeah, I meant when it was first applied to operational jets.

It is an interesting principle, though. I'd say it's fairly important to jet development, but not in the context of KSP.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in The Space Lounge? It's not exactly science, but it's also not exactly KSP.

[MaxxQ]

Yeah, I meant when it was first applied to operational jets.

It is an interesting principle, though. I'd say it's fairly important to jet development, but not in the context of KSP.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in The Space Lounge? It's not exactly science, but it's also not exactly KSP.

The XF-102 was a straight fuselage, delta-wing aircraft. Had trouble breaking the sound barrier. The YF-102 had area ruling applied (coke-bottle fuselage), and the aircraft was able to break Mach easily. I believe at that point, the production F-102 was the first operational aircraft to have area ruling.

Or something like that. It's been years since I was really into aircraft, and the last I paid any attention to was the F-111, as I used to be a weapons loader on them (F-111F's in England - RAF Lakenheath - and F-111D's at Cannon AFB, New Mexico) from 1984-1991.

Edit: Yup. Just did a quick check, and while I had the designations wrong, the F-102 was America's first production aircraft with area ruling. Also, Amazon has plenty of books available on X-Plane history, as well as other experimental and production aircraft, both military and civilian.

Also, also... there's an alphabetical listing of all aircraft on display at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio here: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Portals/7/documents/other/nmusaf_alpha_aircraft_list.pdf Some notable aircraft are the only remaining XB-70, a Mach-3+ bomber, an SR-71, the Have Blue test aircraft that was the precursor to the F-117 and B-2 stealth aircraft, and several lifting-body experimental craft, including the X-24A and B variants. This is from memory, so some of those may not be there now, but they were 10+ years ago when I last went.

Edited September 27, 2015 by MaxxQ

[The_Rocketeer]

Also, also... there's an alphabetical listing of all aircraft on display at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio here: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Portals/7/documents/other/nmusaf_alpha_aircraft_list.pdf Some notable aircraft are the only remaining XB-70, a Mach-3+ bomber, an SR-71, the Have Blue test aircraft that was the precursor to the F-117 and B-2 stealth aircraft, and several lifting-body experimental craft, including the X-24A and B variants. This is from memory, so some of those may not be there now, but they were 10+ years ago when I last went.

Ah, the Valkyrie, one of my favourites! What really impresses about this plane is it was intended to replace the B-52... at Mach 3!! And it used a completely different engineering principle - compression lift - to any other aircraft of similar performance. For size and speed it makes the SR-71 look like a toy, in my view. And those lines...

[Wjolcz]

Well, AFAIK rocket engines are a kind of jet engines so medival China?

I've also been reading about pulsejets lately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsejet

If we consider Wikipedia a reliable source then the first working jet engine was russian and it was built in 1907.

But if we're talking actual jet-powered aircraft then it was Germany with it's Heinkel as others have said already.

EDIT: Here's the first rocket-powered aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_RAK.1

Edited September 27, 2015 by Veeltch

[KerikBalm]

1939-First jet aircraft test flight, Heinkel plane, forgot name, sorry. He178. Pretty basic. Then in 40 or 41 a British jey flew. Sometime later, the He280 prototype fighters were built, but they ended up having problems with the engine, resulting in the Me262 to enter production as the first operational jet fighter in 44 or 45. At the same time the P-80 was developed and tested throughout 43 to 45, and made operational after the war. The Britisg were close, but I don't know much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#Second_World_War

They had the first operational "combat" missions flown by Jet fighters.

The Meteor entered service before the Me-262

Unfortunately... it kind of sucked... and was barely faster than piston engined planes, the Me-262 was much faster and more heavily armed.

After the war, more upgrades to the engines and such resulted in something that outperformed the wartime Me-262... but when they were both in service at the same time, the Meteor was thoroughly outclassed by the Me-262

[Tweeker]

The me-262 was kind of a glass sword, the engines had a life expectancy of 10 to 25 hours. With the average being 12.

By comparison the Whittle engine would run 150 Hours between overhaul

[baldamundo]

The me-262 was kind of a glass sword, the engines had a life expectancy of 10 to 25 hours. With the average being 12.

By comparison the Whittle engine would run 150 Hours between overhaul

Was that not related to Germany's somewhat different priorities at the time, given that they were rapidly losing the war, and even more markedly losing the air war?

[Tweeker]

There where many factors,

The design of the engine was over complicated,

Some of the construction techniques where primitive, for example the turbine blade where made by folding sheet metal, and then soldered into the turbine wheel.

Much of the German development effort was focused on bombers, and the me-262 had to be developed in this role.

While the axial flow design could attain a high EPR it was much more prone to compressor stalls and flameout.

The engine used in the plane, the JUMO 004 was not as advanced as others such as the BMW 003