A.A. Griffith and Whittle

[FlightlessParrot]

Looking around for stuff about German knowledge of British turbine developments, I've come across references to the review of Whittle's project for a jet engine by A.A. Griffith. As commonly, Griffith is depicted as foolishly obstructive.

The grounds I've seen for Griffith's objections were that axial compressors were superior to centrifugal, that a turbine driving a propeller was more efficient than a turbo-jet, that Whittle's device needed metals that did not exist, and by the way, there's an error in the maths.

Sometimes Griffith is described as "a civil servant", as though that clinched his imbecility.

In fact he did important work on metallurgy, especially metal fatigue; pointed out the importance of designing turbine blades as airfoils; and was hired by Rolls Royce in 1939. So not a clown. On axial compressors, he was right ultimately, though centrifugal compressors were easier to reach as a first stage as they could use supercharger design principles. He was wrong on the turbo-jet, though understandably so since at aircraft speeds of 1930 (and indeed at the speeds of 1945) the turbo-prop was (and remains) more efficient. The metallurgy was extremely challenging, and the chief problem for German jets, so not something that could have been guaranteed to be fixable in 1930.

Which looks like the sort of things a competent professional could well get wrong by misjudging the rate of change of technology (and especially not counting on the accelerated pace of development caused by WW 2). And if someone sends in a paper on a radical new technology with an error in the calculations, it's not unfair to point that out, is it?

So it looks to me like another example of the way in which British aircraft development is so often turned into a Stirring Tale of Heroes and Villains, designed to encourage stalwart lads in the service of the Empire. But I don't know the primary sources about the incident. Can anyone enlighten me on whether Griffith really was being unjustly obstructive, or whether it was just a case of competent engineers having a professional disagreement?