Stanley Hooker "Not Much of an Engineer"

[gileraguy]

Designer of the two speed supercharger on the Spitfire IX, intercoolers and assitant to Whittle on the early jet engines. designer of the Orpheus Jet Engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hooker

the thread title is his autobiography title...interesting read on wiki...

"In the late 1980s, test pilot Bill Bedford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bedford) gave a talk in Christie's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie%27s) auction room in South Kensington in London. He had been the original test pilot for the Harrier at Dunsfold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunsfold_Aerodrome). Bedford talked about the various fighters he had flown, many of which had been powered by Hooker's engines. On the screen behind him, towards the end of his talk, he showed a picture of Hooker, and said, "I'll have to think about this a bit, but if I was asked who was Britain's greatest ever engineer, I'd have to decide between Brunel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel) and Sir Stanley Hooker, but I'd probably go for Sir Stanley."

[FantomZorbin]

IMHO an excellent 'read'. :ok:

[FlightlessParrot]

"In the late 1980s, test pilot Bill Bedford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bedford) gave a talk in Christie's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie%27s) auction room in South Kensington in London. He had been the original test pilot for the Harrier at Dunsfold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunsfold_Aerodrome). Bedford talked about the various fighters he had flown, many of which had been powered by Hooker's engines. On the screen behind him, towards the end of his talk, he showed a picture of Hooker, and said, "I'll have to think about this a bit, but if I was asked who was Britain's greatest ever engineer, I'd have to decide between Brunel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel) and Sir Stanley Hooker, but I'd probably go for Sir Stanley."

As Brunel wasn't all that highly thought of by his contemporaries (grandiose, I believe they thought him, and not as good as the Stephensons), looking good for Hooker.

Two things stick in my mind from Hooker's autobiography, perhaps summing up the good and the bad of the UK aircraft industry.

He examined Whittle's impeller design, and concluded that he couldn't improve it. As Hooker made his reputation on the design of the supercharger impeller for the Merlin (and evidently had a proper pride in that), it suggests that Whittle was seriously good.

On the other hand, he spent some time at Bristol, and developed a very poor opinion of the management. It seems that lunch was good, so good that very little got done afterwards.

It's not especially well-put together as a book, but a very interesting read.

[Alan Baker]

As Brunel wasn't all that highly thought of by his contemporaries (grandiose, I believe they thought him, and not as good as the Stephensons), looking good for Hooker.

Two things stick in my mind from Hooker's autobiography, perhaps summing up the good and the bad of the UK aircraft industry.

He examined Whittle's impeller design, and concluded that he couldn't improve it. As Hooker made his reputation on the design of the supercharger impeller for the Merlin (and evidently had a proper pride in that), it suggests that Whittle was seriously good.

On the other hand, he spent some time at Bristol, and developed a very poor opinion of the management. It seems that lunch was good, so good that very little got done afterwards.

It's not especially well-put together as a book, but a very interesting read.

The book was actually written by Bill Gunston. Bill mentions in one of his own books "in his autobiography, which I much enjoyed writing"!

[PAXboy]

Agreed the book is not a 'smooth' read but it is REAL. Fascinating all through.

[India Four Two]

A really good book, which I have read twice. I didn't notice any technical issues with it but a lot of great anecdotes in it,

He describes the shocked reaction of the RR staff, when Packard engineers tell them that the Merlin drawings will have to be redone, because they are not accurate enough!

He also complimented his Chinese hosts, in the 1970s, on their copy of the Russian copy of the Nene and pointed out they had faithfully copied RR's mistakes.

[Wander00]

FZ - I agree, great book IMHO, and I am not an engineer

[DHfan]

A really good book, which I have read twice. I didn't notice any technical issues with it but a lot of great anecdotes in it,

He describes the shocked reaction of the RR staff, when Packard engineers tell them that the Merlin drawings will have to be redone, because they are not accurate enough!

He also complimented his Chinese hosts, in the 1970s, on their copy of the Russian copy of the Nene and pointed out they had faithfully copied RR's mistakes.

It was Ford in the UK, not Packard, and Stanley himself thought they would say the tolerances were too tight, not the opposite. To be fair, at that time he wasn't really an engineer at all, let alone not much of one and assumed RR were the bee's knees.
I've always suspected that Packard used Ford's revised drawings rather than RR's although I've no grounds for it, it just seems logical.

Although I'm a huge fan of Brunel, I could probably be persuaded to give Sir Stanley the accolade and I think it's a shame that most people have never heard of him, even amongst aircraft enthusiasts.

[staircase]

Was it not Hooker, in a criticism of the ‘City’, said that there are only 4 ways to make money?

1. Mine it.

2. Grow it.

3. Manufacture a raw material into a product.

4. Develop an intellectual idea into one of the above.

Anything else was just moving around someone else’s cash whilst creaming some of it off.

[Warmtoast]

With due respect to Mr Hooker, Brunel built bridges, tunnels, railways, docks and ships, which apart from the ships are still around and in daily use today nearly 200-years since they were built - so in my estimation Brunel's activities trump those of Mr Hooker!

FWIW BBC have a downloadable Podcast about Brunel's life here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b04nvbp1
Where Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the Victorian engineer responsible for bridges, tunnels and railways still in use today more than 150 years after they were built. Brunel represented the cutting edge of technological innovation in Victorian Britain, and his life gives us a window onto the social changes that accompanied the Industrial Revolution. Yet his work was not always successful, and his innovative approach to engineering projects was often greeted with suspicion from investors.

[Sir Stanley Bigh]

Agreed this is a very interesting read, saw a copy in the window if my local oxfam and dived in to make the purchase. I thought the comment from his boss at RR “you can’t even manage your personal life, how can you manage RR”” ( I am paraphrasing here) rang very true.

[DHfan]

After posting, I thought again about the breadth of Brunel's achievements and I agree, he would get my vote as the greatest.

That's not to take anything away from Sir Stanley. As well as the Orpheus and other turbojets, there's his work on the Merlin and Griffon superchargers.
For those that either don't know or haven't read the book, he was a theoretical scientist and one of the leading experts in fluid dynamics, with no practical experience at all. What nobody knew, including Lord Hives who employed him at Rolls-Royce, was that this also made him an expert on supercharger design, and later, on gas turbines.
As well as the Orpheus, there's the Olympus, the Pegasus using the Orpheus core, and he led the team that redesigned the RB211 to become an extremely successful engine. I understand the huge 100,000lb range engines that RR are building now can still be traced back to the revised RB211 he and his team designed in the early 70's.

[FlightlessParrot]

FWIW BBC have a downloadable Podcast about Brunel's life here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b04nvbp1

That's a very interesting podcast--I must listen to it again. IIRC, it's pointed out in it that part of the idea of engineering is to make money, and that's one area where the Stephensons were better than Brunel. A great man, indeed, but maybe his preference for the heroic over the profitable was a bad example.

[DHfan]

He examined Whittle's impeller design, and concluded that he couldn't improve it. As Hooker made his reputation on the design of the supercharger impeller for the Merlin (and evidently had a proper pride in that), it suggests that Whittle was seriously good.


Just re-reading and this reminded me of something.
Brunel designed the propeller for the SS Great Britain and although it wasn't the first screw fitted to a ship, it was the first on anything like that scale.
According to the organisation that looks after the ship, using modern computer aided design, the efficiency could only be improved by about 5%.

[ZeBedie]

If I recall correctly, Bristol's gear expert implored Hooker to use helical gears in the Proteus gearbox, but Hooker refused in favour of cheaper straight gears, leading to Bill Pegg's forced landing of a Britannia in the Severn Estuary?

[Wander00]

Whittle, IMHO, the prime example of a product of Trenchard's "3 pillars" of the RAF, well 2 at least, Halton and Cranwell

[DHfan]

If I recall correctly, Bristol's gear expert implored Hooker to use helical gears in the Proteus gearbox, but Hooker refused in favour of cheaper straight gears, leading to Bill Pegg's forced landing of a Britannia in the Severn Estuary?

I'm not sure about that. The Proteus already existed when Hooker arrived at Bristol but it was hopeless.
Unusually, I've got my copy of "Not Much of an Engineer" at the moment, it's often out on loan.
I'll see if I can find the relevant part.

[kenparry]

I'll see if I can find the relevant part.

Page 135/136 indicates that ZeBedie is correct. The chapter lists the many woes of the Proteus.

[DHfan]

Well, not really. It was the only part of the original engine that hadn't been redesigned, so nothing to do with Hooker to start with, and had never given a moments trouble.
How does that turn into "Hooker refused in favour of cheaper straight gears".

With hindsight, obviously it should have been redesigned, but as the engine had been such a disaster and with so many other components to design or modify, why would you change the one section that appeared to work with no problems.

He had authorised the manufacture of a few sets of helical gears just in case, which as it turned out meant they could get revised engines running very quickly, but as he wasn't expecting to use them it's hardly a sign of penny-pinching.

[DaveReidUK]

Well, not really. It was the only part of the original engine that hadn't been redesigned, so nothing to do with Hooker to start with, and had never given a moments trouble.

Yes, that's true, but the Proteus 2 (aka 600 Series) only ever flew on the one and only Saro Princess, so there wasn't exactly a huge amount of in-service experience.

[megan]

I've always suspected that Packard used Ford's revised drawings rather than RR's although I've no grounds for it, it just seems logical.I'm on the road at the moment so unable to give the exact difference between UK and US drawing standards, but the change was to bring the drawings into line with US engineering practice. Of course Packard also introduced their own mods, supercharger drive, mags and pressure carb that didn't cut out with -ve "g". One major issue facing Packard was having to manufacture dies, taps etc in order to keep the British threads on screws, nuts etc, which led to some delay in the program.

[mustafagander]

From an engineering point of view, straight cut gears are a better engineering solution to any gearing situation because they do not impose any side loads as do helical gears. One of the costs is noise, lots of it. Take a look at racing cars.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm a big fan of IKB, but I think he was a good engineer, but a superlative project manager. The latter was his real skill.

For a superlative technical engineer, I think my money would be on Barnes Wallis - who also was a brilliant manager and networker, the latter being at the root of so many of his successes.

When he designed R100, he managed 11 discrete parts in the entire 72ft/33ft framework (50 if you separate by material gauge). You'd struggle nowadays to find many aeroplanes with that few discrete parts in a door!

Which is not to denegrate Hooker. We were privileged in Britain to have a group of incredible engineering geniuses at that time: Mitchell, Hooker, Camm, Wallis, Shilling.... Comparing them is an interesting intellectual exercise, but the reality is that in their own sub-fields, each was unsurpassed.

G

[chevvron]

, but the reality is that in their own sub-fields, each was unsurpassed.

G
and underfunded.

[DHfan]

I'm on the road at the moment so unable to give the exact difference between UK and US drawing standards, but the change was to bring the drawings into line with US engineering practice. Of course Packard also introduced their own mods, supercharger drive, mags and pressure carb that didn't cut out with -ve "g". One major issue facing Packard was having to manufacture dies, taps etc in order to keep the British threads on screws, nuts etc, which led to some delay in the program.

The main difference is the UK, and most of the rest of the world, uses first angle projection and the US uses third angle projection. I had to look that up - it's nearly 45 years since I had to make something from an engineering drawing so don't ask me to explain the difference now! I did know...

As I said, I've no idea if Packard based their drawings on Ford's or RR's but since there was already a set in existence with mass production tolerances it would seem a bit daft to start again. Time was short and according to Hooker it took Ford a year.

IIRC, Packard didn't want to make their own taps and dies but nobody else had the capacity so they were left with little choice.

[aerobelly]

The main difference is the UK, and most of the rest of the world, uses first angle projection and the US uses third angle projection.

My recollection of being on drawing board in the UK 1960/70s is that we pretty much always used 3rd angle. 1970/80s in the USA I was trying to sell them CAD programs and only did examples for training -- do not remember anyone saying I was using unusual projection.


I had to look that up - it's nearly 45 years since I had to make something from an engineering drawing so don't ask me to explain the difference now! I did know...

It is whether you draw a projected view on the side from which you are looking (3rd) or on the side towards which you are looking (1st).. There also exist 2nd and 4th angles, but I have never seen them used and cannot remember what they were. In case of possible misunderstanding in both BS and ANSI codes it was allowed to have a labelled arrow and (eg) VIEW A under the projected view.

If you like Not much of an engineer can I suggest It Was Fun: My Fifty Years of High Performance by Tony Rudd.Designer at the BRM and Lotus F1 teams.


'a

[Genghis the Engineer]

Having spent my formative years in the drawing office at Farnborough using first angle drawings, we all knew about third angle, and so long as we knew that was what it was, had absolutely no trouble using them.

G

[India Four Two]

G,

Thanks. You've answered a question I was going to post. I had never heard of first and third angle, but after reading about them, I thought "Why waste a year? Why not just teach the craftsmen how to use first-angle?"

My recollection from Hooker's book was that Packard needed more precise drawings in order to produce interchangeable parts.

[megan]

A site that provides a good oversight of the Merlin production and issues.

https://aviationshoppe.com/rolls-royce-merlin-20-series-p-254.html

[India Four Two]

megan,

Thanks for that excellent link. I was a bit confused at first when I saw an ad for a blueprint, but then I realized that I had to scroll down to see the text.

[megan]

What I don't see mentioned in literature on the Merlin is the Australian project for manufacture. What little I can glean is the Merlin 102 was produced for installation in Australian built Lincolns. Be interested if anyone has gen, particularly numbers built.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x864/merlinles_600_41f5beb17f757a47759ed8ccf3106aff6cb6d512.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x864/merlinl0s_600_c1d3fb1f7ce70343daea1d07f347597aac0a3a34.jpg