WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt (edited )

The Me262 didn't use centrifugal compressors (radial is the more appropriate term for the subject matter), but axial compressors. The Schwalbe is actually famous for using such an ambitious design.

Axial compressors are signficantly more complicated and requiere very good engineering to make it work properly. 40s technology was probably too primitive back then, it took the Germans a long time to make it work properly. England on the other hand worked with radial engines during that time, e.g Gloster Meteor. It is ironic, the Gloster Meteor that used these engines was a joke in terms of speed for a long time after it was introduced in combat, being more comparable to prop fighters, while the Me262 was doing test trials with top speeds of 950km/h in 42', and ripping apart bomber formations in 44', which seemingly seems to speak for the axial engine design. However, all nations post war used the radial engine to a great effect (Mig-15, F-86) for a good amount of time until into the 50s, where it then started to pretty much die out completely afterwards. Radial engines were a dead end before the 60s, all jet engines were based on the axial design after that.

[–] [deleted] 1 pt (edited )

Still a lot of smaller turbines around which use combined centrifugal/axial compressors. Also the 262 replicas are powered by more modern axial motors not the original ones

[–] 0 pt

With modern tech I wonder if a radial compressor could work. I know single turbos on cars can produce 100+ psi of boost. With a two stages you could have a 15:1 compression ratio.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

If you're talking about the BMW engine, it only flew once and not very well, and that's putting it mildly.

*you were right, the Jumo 004b was an axial turbojet.