Frank Whittle

[ORAC]

75th Anniversary of invention of jet engine coming up. An excellent biographical and anecdotal post by Tim Worstall to kick off a thread....

A fun story about Frank Whittle | Tim Worstall (http://www.timworstall.com/2016/05/09/a-fun-story-about-frank-whittle/)

[Wageslave]

Hmm. At what point was it "invented" then?

When first proposed?

When first detailed design produced?

When working design first completed?

When first build completed?

When first run?

When first flown?

And who first achieved these milestones? This should produce a very blizzard of 75th anniversaries spread from, what? 1978 onwards...if we discount the alleged 18th century proposal for a "gas turbine" so we're perhaps a little late on parade for 75ths.

But I suppose such bigoted, warped, class-ridden twaddle as that link shouldn't be taken as serious information. It certainly didn't seem to contain much.

[Tu.114]

Of course, this article slightly forgets about Hans Pabst von Ohain, his Heinkel S3B jet engine and the Heinkel 178 that took this engine into the air a little bit before the Gloster E.28/39.

As an obituary to his grandfather, this article has some merit, but historically, it is a bit challenged.

[washoutt]

I seem to remember, that the principle of jet propulsion was already described in the early 1900's. Building a working engine required high temperature alloys, which did not become available than in the 1940's.

[Flying Palm Tree]

TU114
Do you seriously consider the Heinkel 178 to have been a practical demonstration of jet powered flight? I think you'll find that in most respects, FW got there first.

[Tu.114]

Well... it was an aircraft that used nothing but one turbojet engine for propulsion, and it did fly a good while before the Gloster. So yes, for all practical purposes I consider the 178 a "practical demonstration of jet-powered flight".

[Haraka]

The He 178 had a more powerful engine than the E28/39 ( over 1,100lb versus 750 lb of thrust). Both Gloster and Heinkel opted for twin engined follow ups as a basis to make a practicable jet fighter, these being the F9/40 (later Meteor) and the He 280.
The prototype He 280 first flew on April 2 1941, thus before the E28/39 (15 May 1941) and well over two years before the F9/40 ( 13 November 1943).

[Wander00]

Didn't good old Leonardo ds Vinci propose something like, but I guess wooden turbine blades would not be, as they say "fit for purpose", and even he was beaten by Hero

[FlightlessParrot]

I've just read Hooker's Not Much of an Engineer, and for the first time have got some sense of what was good about Whittle. Hooker, who first got established for his work on the Merlin supercharger, was obviously surprised, and a bit miffed, at how good Whittle's centrifugal impeller design was, and that Hooker couldn't improve it. Hooker is a bit equivocal on centrifugal vs axial compressors (it's not helped by the fact that he obviously loathed Griffith), but he says that Whittle's design was so good it was the more practical choice in the short term.

As a schoolboy in England, I was brought up on the Whittle myth (Whittle undervalued? which UK was that in?): as so often with British aviation history, it was turned into a morality tale about how bad Government is at doing everything, and Whittle was praised as a visionary, thwarted by civil servants. But there's a fine line between being visionary and being impractical, so it's good to get a sense from Hooker's autobiography that there was a lot more to Whittle than Leonardo-type big ideas.

[chevvron]

Sir Frank's son, Ian, flies from Fairoaks regularly. I'm told his last job before retiring was as a captain on Cathay 747s.
I've never asked about his father but I did read (Aeroplane Monthly?) that he was treated badly at the end of WW2 by the (Labour) government who nationalised his company, Power Jets and gave him hardly any compensation.

[FlightlessParrot]

Wikipedia and the Frank Whittle site Welcome to the Frank Whittle Website (http://www.frankwhittle.co.uk/content.php?act=viewDoc&docId=6&docFatherId=1&level=sub) both put the nationalisation in 1944; Stafford Cripps the Minister, for sure, but under the coalition government. The rewards for inventors initial post-war payout of GBP 10,000 does look low, and was later raised (in 1948, also under a Labour government).

[Flying Palm Tree]

Well... it was an aircraft that used nothing but one turbojet engine for propulsion, and it did fly a good while before the Gloster. So yes, for all practical purposes I consider the 178 a "practical demonstration of jet-powered flight".
Whittle was without doubt one of the world's greatest engineers and his invention changed our world for the better. At a time when his engines could run for 30 hours between overhaul, German engines could only run for 30 minutes before being stripped down and completely rebuilt. So yes, Whittle's engines were the first practical demonstration of jet propulsion.

[FlightlessParrot]

It Would Be Nice If this didn't turn into another "Did the Wright brothers invent the aeroplane?" thread.

It's pretty clear that there is a lot of collaborative history here, and lots of people were the first to get to a particular point, so one can only talk about a unique inventor if one cherry-picks the crucial point to suit a particular candidate.

It looks like von Ohain and Whittle were working independently, though Whittle was ahead. The report of von Ohain's comments on the Whittle patent, quoted in Wikipedia, show that even though he does seem to have become aware of Whittle's work earlier than he originally admitted, he had strongly developed ideas of his own already.

The other point is that a new development like this is not just a question of an inventor: there's the whole process of industrialization. Germany seems to have done better than the UK here. It sounds like Whittle's personality might have had some effect, but much more likely the contrast is between Whittle having NOT been born into the officer class, and so having a lot of headway to make up, whereas Ohain was von from the start, and had a smooth ride into academic employment at the U of Goettingen.

But Hooker's account of Whittle is very interesting, and different from the normal culture-hero myths. Any suggestions on good biographies of Whittle?

[His dudeness]

Whittle was without doubt one of the world's greatest engineers and his invention changed our world for the better. At a time when his engines could run for 30 hours between overhaul, German engines could only run for 30 minutes before being stripped down and completely rebuilt. So yes, Whittle's engines were the first practical demonstration of jet propulsion.

And you don´t think that has had "something" to do with the materials situation in Germany at the time ?

So Sir Frank Whittle changed the world for the better and Dr. Joachim Pabst von Ohain didn´t....?

[Flying Palm Tree]

Whittle was the first to patent a practical design in 1930. One of the simplest and most effective prime movers the world has ever known.

[longer ron]

And you don´t think that has had "something" to do with the materials situation in Germany at the time ?

So Sir Frank Whittle changed the world for the better and Dr. Joachim Pabst von Ohain didn´t....?

Not really - the German Axial flow engine was too far ahead of achievable production reliability - Frank Whittle was clever enough to know that the centrifugal engine could be made reliable within a reasonable time scale - he was aware of Axial flow !
Even the Allies who had access to exotic alloys etc struggled with axial flow blade design/ reliability for some years after 1945.
In short the Germans tried to run before they could walk with axial flow engines !

[FlightlessParrot]

I would have thought problems with materials, esp. high temperature steels, would have affected turbines rather than compressors.

[Haraka]

As an observation: the He 178 was powered by the HeS 3- with a centrifugal compressor.The He 280 , flying before the E28/39, was powered by two HeS 8 engines, which, at that stage, had purely centrifugal compressors.
In fairness centrifugal, axial, centrifugal/axial compressors and even ducted fans were initially developed around the Heinkel team and Ohain was keen to move to axial compressors post the HeS3 , one of the several arguments being the potential lower frontal area of the axially compressed jet engine.
I would agree that Longer ron is quite correct in his qualified overall assessment though.

However do note that when you look at the long thin turboprop nacelles as on Viscount, F27, Herald , Hs 748 et.al , you are looking at housings for Rolls Royce Darts:
centrifugally compressed engines.

[longer ron]

ISTR that when the Meteor entered service - Time Between Overhaul for the RR Welland was already 180 hours compared to the absolute life of 10 - 25 hrs for the Jumo jet engine - the German engines were simply not production standard - I know much has been made about lack of certain materials in germany but in my view they tried to run before they could walk with jet technology and would still have struggled with blade technology and engine control problems for a few more years yet even if there was not a shortage of certain materials for alloys etc.
Compare the design philosophy of both engines - The chunky RR Welland looks like it had a chance of running for quite a few hours safely but The Jumo looks fragile (especially the turbine LOL) and I honestly do not think it was a good design !

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/Jumo_zpsey9qpkj0.jpg

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/Welland_zps7gxgkxur.jpg

[longer ron]

Whittle was well aware that the axial flow compressor had the potential for a mass flow far in excess of the centrifugal compressor, however as engineers and scientists had not resolved the complex aerodynamic problems the axial flow presented he took the decision to use the proven centrifugal compressor


One of the forgotten men in jet engine development is David Smith

The Urmston Connection - a tribute to Dr. David Smith FRS.

Dr.David Smith was a mathematically gifted Scot living in Bowden Cheshire, employed by Metropolitan Vickers Trafford Park Manchester. David Smith had written several mathematical papers on the problems of steam turbine rotor stability and was held in deep respect for his analytical mind and use of the calculus.
The achievement for which David Smith will be best remembered was his role in the development of the first British axial flow jet engine for aircraft propulsion. I was fortunate enough to meet David Smith after his retirement. David passed away in 1986, and was described in his obituary published by the FRS as an 'intellectual giant' praise indeed from the institute.
Although he was a steam turbine design engineer within Metropolitan Vickers, David Smith, and others at the company were aware of the possibilities of the axial flow turbojet engine.
Originally, the first British axial-flow aircraft gas turbine B10 (Betty) was to have been built by the RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment) the engines compressor was based on test data from experimental compressor 'Anne' built to a design by AA Griffith of the RAE and manufactured by Fraser and Chalmers. A senior scientist within the RAE, A.A.Griffith had published paper on gas turbine development as early as 1926, and together with Hayne Constant also of the RAE considered that the compressors of future gas turbines should be of the axial type; However, the RAE did not have the manufacturing or research capability to make this aerodynamically complex compressor work on a scale sufficient to power an aircraft.
In 1937 discussions took place between the RAE and Metropolitan Vickers chief engineer Dr. Karl Baumann who in turn appointed Dr. David Smith to lead the design, development and manufacturing team. Work started at the company the following year under an Air Ministry Contract.
The experimental non-flight engine B10 had proved successful, with a compression ratio of 2:1. B10 amazed engineers by running happily with the turbine casing glowing with a dull red heat.
As war broke out and the Trafford Park Factory became committed to war work and space was at a premium, B10 had set fire to the research facility so it was decided to extend a small overspeed test cell which had been built in some secrecy on land off Barton Dock Road Urmston Manchester with a view to relocate all gas turbine research and development. For a brief period the salt mines in Wincham had been used for engine testing, however pollution and fog from the nearby industrial town of Northwich caused contamination of the compressor blading which effected performance tests so all efforts were concentrated at 'Barton Test'.
The first flight engine F2 (Freda) ran in a test cell during December 1942, by June 1943 an F2 engine of 1800 lb static thrust was altitude tested in the tail of a Lancaster Bomber. The Lancaster which operated from the RAE Farnborough became the topic of much local discussion as it flew over the Manchester area. Interestingly the aircraft allocated by the ministry was the Lancaster prototype which proved to be most unreliable, much to the frustration of Dr. Smith and the Metrovic team.
The first aircraft to be powered by and axial flow turbojet was a Gloster F/9 40 Meteor aircraft, the flight took place at the RAE on the 13th November 1943.
Metrovic continued turbojet development, the last flight engine being the F9 Sapphire, the design of which was handed to Armstong Siddley when Metropolitan Vickers decided to opt out of aircraft gas turbines and concentrate manufacturing and development on Industrial and Marine steam and gas turbines.

The Sapphire engine was also license built in the USA as the J65

[longer ron]

The Metrovick F2 design was pointing the way to future turbojet technology -

This pic probably taken at Glosters Bentham test facility -

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/jet%20engines/DG204_zps5106186e.jpg


The first british axial flow engine to fly was the Metrovick F2,early testing in the tail of a Lancaster and then 2 flight rated engines were fitted to Gloster Meteor DG204,this a/c crashed on 4th(14th ?) jan 1944 after only approx 3 hours of engine testing - unfortunately killing the pilot Sqn Ldr Davie AFC.


Unfortunately, on a test flight in Jan 1944,
one of the engine compressor rotors burst in mid-air, killing the pilot in the subsequent crash.
Though the cause was traced to metallurgical faults in the rotor forgings

[Alan Baker]

It is, of course, nonsensical to suggest that if it weren't for Whittle we wouldn't have the jet engine, or if it weren't for Baird we wouldn't have television etc. These people were pioneers, but not the only ones working on the principle. In both cases, different developments turned out to be the best option, i.e. axial flow jets rather than centrifugal flow and electronic TV rather than Baird's mechanical system, but that doesn't diminish the importance of their pioneering work.

[megan]

Fully agree Alan.

"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours." John of Salisbury, "Metalogicon", 1159

[longer ron]

I certainly would not knock Whittle - he had to battle official indifference to succeed in getting to a stage where the engine was practical.
He was also a clever man in that he had already been working on Axial Flow,Turbofan and Reheat.
But he rightly concentrated initially on the centrifugal engine because he knew it would be a practical proposition.
An engine with a working life of 15 - 25 hours TT would not have been put into production in this country,in fact it may never even have been bolted to an aircraft LOL

[longer ron]

The main reason I mentioned David Smith earlier is that he approached Axial Flow design/development in a totally different way to the Germans.
He rightly thought that the best approach was to try and get the Compressor/Turbine flows etc correct and then to lighten the casing weight to fit on an aircraft.
The German approach seemed to be to try and get the smallest/lightest design at the expense of turbine development - also their engine control/fuel control systems were bizarre to say the least - a real development cul de sac !

From Graces Guide...

What the article below does not say is that the Sapphire Compressor design was actually eventually used to improve the RR Avon - the original RR Avon compressor design was not very successful !

As I previously mentioned the Axial Meteor crashed after 3 hours flying - killing Sqn Ldr Davie AFC

1943 On November 13, 1943, a prototype Gloster Meteor fighter equipped with F2 engines made a flight from Farnborough. These were installed in underslung nacelles. This was the first time that a jet propelled aircraft with axial-flow engines had been flown in the UK.
The engines were more powerful than the Whittle design, first delivering 1,800 lbf (8 kN) but soon scaling up to well over 2,000 lbf (8.9 kN). However, the engine suffered from a number of problems that cast doubts on its reliability. These were primarily due to hot spots building up on the turbine bearing and combustion chamber. The latter, in turn, caused warping and fractures of the turbine inlet nozzles.
Eventually the overheating problem was resolved in the F.2/3 during 1943 by replacing the original annular combustion chamber with can-type burners like those on the Whittle designs. Thrust was raised to 2,700 lbf (12,000 N) in the process.
Development of the F.2 continued on a version using a ten-stage compressor for additional airflow driven by a single stage turbine. The new F.2/4 initially developed 3,250 lbf (14.45 kN) and was test flown in Avro Lancaster before being installed in the Saunders-Roe: SR/A1 flying boat fighter. Thrust had already improved to 3,850 lbf (17.1 kN) for the third prototype, and eventually settled at 4,000 lbf (17.8 kN), making the engine one of the most powerful of its era. The production engine was known as the Beryl.
1944 Development of the F.2 but development of the concept continued, eventually leading to the considerably larger F.9 Sapphire.
1947 Metrovick sold its jet engine unit to Armstrong Siddeley Motors, and the design team moved there. The Sapphire matured into a successful design, initially beating the power of its Rolls-Royce contemporary, the Avon. Design features of the Metrovick line were incorporated in Armstrong Siddeley's own line of axial compressor turboprops.

[Stanwell]

There was an experimental turboprop adaption of the Derwent engine, a pair of which were trialled on a Meteor, ISTR.
Apparently, the aircraft completed its trials in one piece but it seems the project went nowhere.
So, two questions:
1. Does anyone have details of that project?
2. Was Frank Whittle involved?

[ORAC]

RR RB-50 Trent,

Gloster Trent-Meteor - experimental aircraft (http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/gloster_trent-meteor.php)

[longer ron]

As a (hopefully) interesting aside - we visited the Irvine Maritime Museum yesterday and one of their many interesting lumps was a High Pressure Steam Turbine from the TS King Edward (Turbine Ship) this ship had a 50 year career (1901 - 1951) mostly on the west coast of scotland and apparently more economical to run when at maximum speed (20 knots) than at slower speeds,but it had been designed as a high speed ship.

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/DSCF1399_zpsvevsjqtz.jpg

Front end (intake)

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/DSCF1398_zps90go38ln.jpg

Rear end (driveshaft)

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/DSCF1400_zpsrlotnqtk.jpg

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/DSCF1456_zpsrogwpulr.jpg

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/DSCF1454_zps5tat8fxv.jpg

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/DSCF1455_zpso0gjrtw3.jpg

[Stanwell]

ORAC,
Thanks very much for the info on the Trent-Meteor. :ok:

[izod tester]

There is another connection between marine turbine engines and the E28/39. George Carter, Gloster's chief designer had worked on Marine turbine engines with WH Allen in Bedford between 1908 and 1912.

[Flying Palm Tree]

That's so cool why didn't the Wright brothers go for a gas turbine?

[longer ron]

Because their area of expertise was bicycles - thats why they had so much chain for their prop drive system :).

[Wageslave]

Oh dear! longer ron, that's such a tired, conventional excuse.

Surely you know the real reason Wilbur and Orville didn't go for a gas turbine was because their supply of A stoff and C stoff for the rocket engine had been used up and all they had left was the Briggs and Stratton from their rotorvator. They even had to re-distil some of Grandpaw's hooch to make it go as the local Shell station was closed that weekend due to the owner being at Oshkosh.:ugh:

[Wageslave]

Oh dear! longer ron, that's such a tired, conventional excuse.

Surely you know the real reason Wilbur and Orville didn't go for a gas turbine was because they'd bought a rocket engine at the aerojumble instead, but sadly their supply of A stoff and C stoff had been used up at rave parties and all they had left was the Briggs and Stratton from their rotorvator. They even had to re-distil some of Grandpaw's hooch to make it go as the local Shell station was closed that weekend due to the owner being at Oshkosh.

's true, I tell you!

[Fly4Business]

What a mixture of so many parallel things ... hard to digest the reading with history in mind. With many things said true, we do have to remember when these jet designs were done and for what purpose. During that phase of the war, fighters in WW2 were originally designed for a max lifetime of ten to twenty hours (even on Korea the US fighter jets were designed to last for 4 missions max total 25 hours), because they were thought to be shot down anyways. A 30 hours TBO is plenty of time in that light and anything more was a waste of engineering. This stuff was war material, not built to last, but designed to be built cheap in masses and disposable.

[VX275]

why didn't the Wright brothers go for a gas turbine?


Simple, because the material technology required didn't exist. It was however, up to letting the Wrights build a petrol engine with an adequate power to weight ratio to permit flight.
I have a book printed in 1912 which contains a diagram of a gas turbine but its of a massive steel construction just like those steam turbines in the previous post. It took a great leap of imagination (and the development of Nickel steel alloys) to think that that gas turbine could become a jet engine and that's what Whittle had.


Going back to the Wrights, it always surprised me that two bicycle manufacturers didn't use their bicycle wheels on their aircraft especially when Sir George Cayley had invented them (tensioned wire spoked wheels) for HIS aircraft.

[DaveReidUK]

Going back to the Wrights, it always surprised me that two bicycle manufacturers didn't use their bicycle wheels on their aircraft especially when Sir George Cayley had invented them (tensioned wire spoked wheels) for HIS aircraft.

Once you're airborne, wheels (even lightweight bicycle ones) are just dead weight.

Better to leave them on the ground.

[Flying Palm Tree]

Simple, because the material technology required didn't exist. It was however, up to letting the Wrights build a petrol engine with an adequate power to weight ratio to permit flight.
I have a book printed in 1912 which contains a diagram of a gas turbine but its of a massive steel construction just like those steam turbines in the previous post. It took a great leap of imagination (and the development of Nickel steel alloys) to think that that gas turbine could become a jet engine and that's what Whittle had.

So how come the Italians were mucking about with the utterly useless Caproni Campini N1 in 1940 if the solution was so obvious? Even the Germans had taken advantage of Whittle's patent by 1936. What was Whittle's inventive step if it was not the first practical means of jet propulsion?

[Wageslave]

You could hardly call the Wright brothers' engine a "practical means" of propulsion. It had no lubrication system beyond the application of an oil can before start.
That Caproni, "useless" or not by virtue of 20/20 hindsight must have taught their engineers an awful lot despite not being a complete jet engine. Just because Von Ohain and later Whittle beat them to it doesn't make it "utterly useless", does it?

[FlightlessParrot]

What was Whittle's inventive step if it was not the first practical means of jet propulsion?

The compressor, and thinking far enough ahead.

I think the turbine part is a bit of a red herring, as far as priority goes: there were real materials problems, but everybody faced them. Whittle was good enough to design a really efficient compressor that was usable until the superior axial-flow design was fully developed. One less bit of radically new technology to develop.

The other thing is that Whittle foresaw speeds and altitudes far beyond the state of the art when he began. Griffith gets to be a bit of a bogey-man in this story, but it's interesting to compare their different takes on the matter.

Griffith preferred the axial-flow compressor: not surprising, since it was the long-term solution, not to mention the fact that he'd made a major discovery about the way blades worked in such a device.

Griffith was thinking of turboprops, not jets. Considering the speeds of aircraft flying and planned in about 1930, this was entirely reasonable. It turned out that the wild blue yonder Whittle was thinking about came along quicker than most people would have expected.

I think it undervalues Whittle to set him up as some unique genius, alone against (or at least ahead of) all the world. The possibilities of gas turbines, and of jet propulsion, were visible to a lot of people, but making them work depended on a lot of optimisations, and sometimes settling for good enough for the time being. Whittle seems to have got more things right here than most (including, perhaps, von Ohain, who started later, and so for whom the relevant speeds and altitudes were easier to envisage).

[longer ron]

During that phase of the war, fighters in WW2 were originally designed for a max lifetime of ten to twenty hours (even on Korea the US fighter jets were designed to last for 4 missions max total 25 hours), because they were thought to be shot down anyways. A 30 hours TBO is plenty of time in that light and anything more was a waste of engineering. This stuff was war material, not built to last, but designed to be built cheap in masses and disposable.

If I were an operational pilot flying (say) over water or a cold mountainous region
and flying along in my early jet I would be much happier being propelled along by a jet with a reasonable TBO LOL.
I would hope that the US Korean jets had a longer TBO than 25 hours - otherwise the groundcrew would have spent all their time changing engines :)

[Wageslave]

(even on Korea the US fighter jets were designed to last for 4 missions max total 25 hours)

You are kidding!

Can you provide a reference for that extraordinary statement?

That would use up half a squadron of airframes for even a minimal pilot type conversion, hardly sounds practical.

[longer ron]

I think he may have been talking about the unreliability of early Axial flow engines,the early J47 could well have had a useful life of circa 25 hours although a few years later - later marks of J47 were circa 400 - 600hr life ?.
As I posted earlier - it took a few years to iron out design/manufacturing faults with Axial engine blade technology - which is why Whittle stuck with the centrifugal engine to start with.

[FlightlessParrot]

On the short life of engines. I remember that when I heard that the life of a Klimov was about 50 hours (word of mouth from a restorer, so may not be totally accurate), I thought that was going it a bit even by Soviet standards. Then I guessed the average life of an airframe in combat on the Eastern Front, and thought that maybe it was a cost-effective solution. Same would hold for the desperate situation of the Luftwaffe in 1944-5, especially as jets took something like a third as many man-hours to make as piston engines, and used lower-grade fuel. So a short life could be practical for Germany in 1944.

[longer ron]

In combat - you need 'unburstable' engines , 10 - 15 hrs on any engine is unacceptable and just a complete waste of raw materials and manhours - luckily for us the German Aircraft procurement system was so badly 'organised' and political that they wasted the whole war on 'superweapons',if they had built more of their conventional aircraft they would have had a more effective Air Force.

Similar with their bomber force - if they had simply fitted 4 normal engines to the He 177 they would have had a long range heavy bomber which could have struck far into Russia and perhaps slowed down their industrial build up - but they persisted with the problematic self igniting coupled engines for almost the whole war - unbelievable - but lucky for the allies !