Frank Whittle
The Metrovick F2 design was pointing the way to future turbojet technology -
This pic probably taken at Glosters Bentham test facility -
This pic probably taken at Glosters Bentham test facility -
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
"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
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
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
Front end (intake)
Rear end (driveshaft)
Front end (intake)
Rear end (driveshaft)
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.
.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Greater London Area
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Fly4Business; 20th May 2016 at 07:50.
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.
Better to leave them on the ground.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was Whittle's inventive step if it was not the first practical means of jet propulsion?
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).