wuzak
Captain
I wonder if the Metrovicks F1 turboprop could have been ready by 1943?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If you have a working turbo-prop you have a working jet engine. The turbo prop is NOT a stepping stone to the the JET. It is a JET with EXTRA bits bolted on to give greater propulsive efficiency at low/medium speeds.
Griffith is one of the little known pioneer theorists on gas turbine technology. One of his ideas was a multi-stage unducted fan, with the propulsive vanes directly attached to the turbine wheels, nevertheless, his ideas, being so advanced couldn't have been built with the technology of the day.
You might be surprised to learn that the first axial flow gas turbine that successfully ran - in Germany, naturally, was designed as a turboprop. This was the work of Herbert Wagner; he worked with Junkers to build a gas turbine powerplant for the EF-61 high altitude research aircraft.
If you have a working turbo-prop you have a working jet engine. The turbo prop is NOT a stepping stone to the the JET. It is a JET with EXTRA bits bolted on to give greater propulsive efficiency at low/medium speeds.
I suspect that the extra hassle of more turbine stages, reducer gearboxes, complicated control systems make the turbo-prop a non starter for combat aircraft. Niches remain such as STOL but for military struggling to obtain the upper hand they may as well use their highly developed piston engines on transports and maritime patrol aircraft while the combat aircraft use turbojets.
Even in the range area the turbo-prop offers little advantage in long flights.