Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interestingly Griffith was the one that turned down Whittle's proposal in 1929...No conflict of interest there. Had Britain developed Whittle's engine starting 1929 (therefore before he patented it in 1930), they would have had a reliable engine, especially if you consider that despite little funding and little support, Whittle managed to test his engine on the ground in 1937. that's before von Ohain's first flight. The Vickers F.2 flew, I think, in late 1943, that's 6 years after Whittle's test. How good was Whittle's engine? Considering that the Soviets used it in the 50s in their MiG-15, courtesy of Rolls Royce, I would say it would have been a pretty good jet engine at the beginning of the conflict, hadn't Griffith dismissed it in 1929. Also, let's not forget that von Ohain had all the support and funds needed and that his 1939 engine was anything but good. It took Germany many more years to have a decent one, but still unreliable, and by then it was useless anyway. Whittle's engine was less performing, but a lot easier to develop into a good engine, and it's hard to deny it would have made a difference in the late 30s. It's also interesting what von Ohain himself says about the race for the jet engine:Whittle didn't "invent" the turbojet engine, he developed and built his centrifugal design.
The first aircraft axial jet design was patented by Maxime Guillaume in the early 20's and Britain's first axial jet engine, the Vickers F.2, was designed by Alan Griffith, who published the design in 1926.
Whittle and Von Ohain's engines were Centrifugal flow where as the Vickers F.2, Jumo004 and BMW003 were Axial flow.So, the Vickers F.2 was only ~4 years behind Whittle's for first run?
Yes, the Campini N.1 motorjet, which first flew in 1940, about a year after the He178.Wasn't that the system the first Italian jet used?
It just posted that to illustrate that there were ll sorts of ideas and patents. From the piece I read Whittle had trouble getting backing because it was all about calculations and theories, and as was illustrated later many of these were wrong to start with. I suppose at the time a jet engine as we know it now would seem like a perpetual motion theory to those who believed in motor jets.Wasn't that the system the first Italian jet used?
It's easy in retrospect to say that the state should have poured massive resources into jets starting in the early 1930'ies, and if so, the WW2 air war might have looked very different. But heck, the RAF was introducing a new biplane fighter as late as 1937 (Gloster Gladiator). In 1929 it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to view jet engines as yet another crackpot theory. Or if not outright a crackpot theory, an entirely wild concept that most likely wouldn't work at all, and even if it did, nothing with a useful application.It just posted that to illustrate that there were ll sorts of ideas and patents. From the piece I read Whittle had trouble getting backing because it was all about calculations and theories, and as was illustrated later many of these were wrong to start with. I suppose at the time a jet engine as we know it now would seem like a perpetual motion theory to those who believed in motor jets.
Many things are of their time. If you were to hand the detailed plans and all technical info for a Whittle or RR jet to the Wright Brothers how much would it have advanced aviation?It's easy in retrospect to say that the state should have poured massive resources into jets starting in the early 1930'ies, and if so, the WW2 air war might have looked very different. But heck, the RAF was introducing a new biplane fighter as late as 1937 (Gloster Gladiator). In 1929 it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to view jet engines as yet another crackpot theory. Or if not outright a crackpot theory, an entirely wild concept that most likely wouldn't work at all, and even if it did, nothing with a useful application.
To be honest, I'm a fan of the Hirth engines - but in all honesty, had Griffith's design been pursued at the time, Britain may have had an Axial flow jet well before the war.re "Whittle and Von Ohain's engines were Centrifugal flow where as the Vickers F.2, Jumo004 and BMW003 were Axial flow.
Different design theories."
I know, just teasing as I know your interest in the F.2