the invention of the turbojet. A letter that changed history

[Dronescapes]

A rare letter that changed aviation history.
After struggling for several years, Frank Whittle, the inventor of the turbojet, received a proposal that led to limited private funding, allowing him to develop the first working turbojet in April 1937.
The turbojet history: https://youtu.be/vBgRnt4lNYw

 

[gruad]

Frank Whittle is such a genius the story seems almost implausible that one man can do so much.

Forum Experts: could we have had Jet fighters by 1942 and not 1944...

 

[Dronescapes]

Frank Whittle is such a genius the story seems almost implausible that one man can do so much.

Forum Experts: could we have had Jet fighters by 1942 and not 1944...

Imagine if he had not been delayed/stopped in his tracks because Griffith rejected his project in 1929.
The time between that event and this letter is 6 (eternal) years.
Even the resulting funds from this contact were extremely limited, barely sufficient for him to work on his project.
detract at least 4 (complete) lost years from April 1937, when he first fired up his engine, months before the Germans...
Remember that in 1934 he did not even have £4 to renew his patent, which was not secreted, and therefore copied and distributed by the Germans, ending up on Von Ohain's desk as he started working on his engine in 1935 (by his admission).
I guess you can fairly assess that if Britain had supported Whittle, they could have had a working turbojet by 1935/1936.
If Britain even minimally cared about the turbojet, they could have had a test aircraft and probably a jet in production by 1939.
Whittle's centrifugal turbojet had power limitations but was easy to develop, and was very reliable for the time, unlike the engineering disaster that the German engine was when it entered service in late 1944.
Whittle's engine was ultimately surpassed in the 50s when the Lockheed P-80 (F-80) had to face the MiG15 in Korea. Both were ironically powered by the same engine, Whittle's derived or reverse-engineered.
The U.S. had to rush their first axial turbojet aircraft into service to counteract the formidable MiGs, which were swept-wing aircraft.

 

[SaparotRob]

Wasn't Lockheed working on a jet engine before America's involvement in WW II? The L-1000? Imagine if that project was funded.

 

[GrauGeist]

Some things wrong up there.

First of all, Whittle was brilliant, no doubt, but Maxime Guillame's axial-flow jet patent was filed in 1921 - Whittle's design was an adaptation drawn from Alan Griffith's 1926 publication "An Aerodynamic Theory Of Turbine Design", which became the basis of development at the RAE.

In regards to the first fighters, had the RLM not yawned at the He178's first flight in 1939, and actually dedicated funding for engine and aircraft development, then the He280, which was the world's first jet fighter, would have taken the limelight from the later Me262.

As for the P-80 and American jets in Korea, the F-86 (which was introduced into service in 1949, before the Korean war) was powered by a GE J47 Axial-flow engine, not a centrifugal engine, like the P-80's Allison J33.

The F-86 itself, was derived from North American's FJ-1, which was powered by an Allison J35 Axial-flow engine.

The FJ-1 entered service in March 1948.

 

[Shortround6]

Wasn't Lockheed working on a jet engine before America's involvement in WW II? The L-1000? Imagine if that project was funded.

It made the Space Shuttle look like a short walk in the park, throw stick for the dog and dinner is done at 6 PM.

another case of the designers trying to be way too clever too early in the process.

the L-1000 started with a axial compressor (number of stages unknown) of 8 to 1 pressure ratio (not actually hit until the 1950s) that was driven by a variable speed drive (fluid coupling) and the air exited that, went through a liquid intercooler, then went into a centrifugal compressor stage and then through a 2nd intercooler and then through two more centrifugal stages before reaching the combustion chambers.
the combustion air exited the combustion chambers and went through a 5 stage turbine (later 4 stages).

A lot of years were spent simplifying things (throwing entire stages/assemblies ) out.

https://www.enginehistory.org/GasTurbines/EarlyGT/XJ37/XJ37.shtml

In the year 2023 nobody has actually built such a complex jet engine, let alone got one to run.

 

[GregP]

Some things wrong up there.

First of all, Whittle was brilliant, no doubt, but Maxime Guillame's axial-flow jet patent was filed in 1921 - Whittle's design was an adaptation drawn from Alan Griffith's 1926 publication "An Aerodynamic Theory Of Turbine Design", which became the basis of development at the RAE.

In regards to the first fighters, had the RLM not yawned at the He178's first flight in 1939, and actually dedicated funding for engine and aircraft development, then the He280, which was the world's first jet fighter, would have taken the limelight from the later Me262.

As for the P-80 and American jets in Korea, the F-86 (which was introduced into service in 1949, before the Korean war) was powered by a GE J47 Axial-flow engine, not a centrifugal engine, like the P-80's Allison J33.

The F-86 itself, was derived from North American's FJ-1, which was powered by an Allison J35 Axial-flow engine.

The FJ-1 entered service in March 1948.

Just in case you don't know, Yank's Air Museum in Chino, CA has a pristine FJ-1 on display minus tip tanks, painted Navy blue.

The pic above is an old one and the FJ-1 now wears a canopy. Still trying to get tip tanks!

The Planes of Fame has a real, live L-1000 engine on display.

Definitely axial flow!

Needs dusting above!

 

[SaparotRob]

Just in case you don't know, Yank's Air Museum in Chino, CA has a pristine FJ-1 on display minus tip tanks, painted Navy blue.

View attachment 754563

The pic above is an old one and the FJ-1 now wears a canopy. Still trying to get tip tanks!

The Planes of Fame has a real, live L-1000 engine on display.

View attachment 754564

Definitely axial flow!

Needs dusting above!

Well, since I'm planning on coming back to wipe my fingerprint off the Zero's cowling, I'll bring a feather duster.

 

[GrauGeist]

Greg, did you know that Yank's FJ-1 was in Southern California once before?

It was briefly stationed at Los Alamos in 1950!

 

[bauple58]

The Americans had decided, as early as 1943, to invest in the Halford (rather than the Whittle) engine. Vide RG 107, NACP.

 

[Dronescapes]

Some things wrong up there.

First of all, Whittle was brilliant, no doubt, but Maxime Guillame's axial-flow jet patent was filed in 1921 - Whittle's design was an adaptation drawn from Alan Griffith's 1926 publication "An Aerodynamic Theory Of Turbine Design", which became the basis of development at the RAE.

In regards to the first fighters, had the RLM not yawned at the He178's first flight in 1939, and actually dedicated funding for engine and aircraft development, then the He280, which was the world's first jet fighter, would have taken the limelight from the later Me262.

As for the P-80 and American jets in Korea, the F-86 (which was introduced into service in 1949, before the Korean war) was powered by a GE J47 Axial-flow engine, not a centrifugal engine, like the P-80's Allison J33.

The F-86 itself, was derived from North American's FJ-1, which was powered by an Allison J35 Axial-flow engine.

The FJ-1 entered service in March 1948.

You forgot to mention that the He178 was powered by a centrifugal turbojet, or that Griffith was, for an obvious conflict of interest, the sole culprit of delaying Whittle's work.
Do not forget that he was the sole judge of the young inventor's work, and as Whittle described in an upcoming 'resurfaced' interview, Griffith made an odd mistake in the calculations and also used that to reject the project...There was no actual mistake.
If you credit Guillaume for good intuition, then you need to credit the Greeks as well, as far as 2,000 years prior, and countless people in between.
That is perhaps why he has no real place in history, nor do countless others.
Coanda gets a good run, but that is only because of Soviet-style propaganda, forged documents, unproven flights, etc.
Coanda was brilliant, but he did not invent the turbojet, as some still try to (desperately) prove.
He envisioned a glorified vacuum cleaner with wings, powered by a piston engine.
Since we are at it, let us not dismiss another genius! Caproni and the various engineers came up with interesting solutions, and inventions, including one that with a stretch of the imagination, in the pretend world, can be defined as a jet engine (not really, but still interesting).
A partial drawing/good intuition and a working turbojet are two completely different things, and you would also have to mention Elling, who probably had one of the best intuitions.
Whittle's aim was to have the perfect transitional turbojet, and how right he would have been, if they listened to him, as the German turbojet, despite all the efforts, was still a very flawed engine.
You also cannot dismiss the fact that the U.S. also had full access to the British Metrovick's work, not just Whittle's, hence they had access to both axial, and centrifugal solutions.
Metrovick had a working axial turbojet at the time that Whittle, together with his engine were 'shipped' in great secrecy to the U.S. (1941).
It is pretty obvious that the Brits kickstarted a lot of things when it comes to turbojets.
Whittle's engine powered the first jet to fly on U.S. soil (Bell XP-59), and that might be one of the reasons why he is still adored, and celebrated by G.E. to this day.
It might also be worth mentioning how Whittle tinkered with what today we call afterburners, another game changer in the turbojet realm.
Once more, if you consider the massive delays (did you know that Whittle was also ordered by his superiors to work on his invention only a handful of hours a week?) that the British inventor endured, the practically complete lack of funding, and total lack of support from his own government until a decade later, when they also did everything they could to snatch his work from him (Rover was a disastrous example), and at the same time you factor in Von Ohain and Heinkel, with full access to the Brit's work, and most likely to Griffith's seminal paper as well, and the subsequent involvement of Junkers, and BMW, the end result is pretty pathetic.
The Me 262 had a great airframe (citing the legendary Eric Brown), but a great aircraft with an utterly flawed engine that had been in development for ages, that despite massive efforts, was still barely functional, is not something to write home about.
Perhaps that is why after the war nobody really cared about those German (wonderless) turbojets.
As already mentioned the Soviets trashed them in favor of Whittle/Rolls Royce/Nene reverse-engineered turbojet. The Czech Air Force made some pathetic attempts, but eventually also used the British cloned engines, and the French, together with some Nazi engineers gave it a go as well, but I don't think history remembers them either.
When I think of Whittle VS. a platoon of German companies and engineers, David VS. Goliath comes to mind, and we know how that ended.
One thing that is quite puzzling is why Kelly Johnson/Lockheed, who also had access to airframes like the Me 262, did not just copy their ideas for the Shooting Star.
It seems that having acquired the British powerplant, years before the Soviets, they would have also copied/adopted the German ideas.
I would certainly have expected someone like Johnson to push for something resembling the formidable MiG15.
Britain, as Brown reminded us, could care less about the German engines, but they were blown away at, for example, the wind tunnels that the Germans had, ages ahead of anything Britain had at the time.
It's not like the U.S. did not have access to German aircraft, as Eric Brown even traded them for access to people like the imprisoned Goering.
A truly fascinating story, and if you have not watched it, here it is:
View: https://youtu.be/PSRAdZzRycc

 

[yulzari]

All inventors stand on the shoulders of giants. Whittle perforce was aware of those before him and used their knowledge as does every inventor. This is normal. It would be poor scientist or engineer who wilfully ignored the work of others before him.

The first British jet aeroplane was a 1939 requirement and the Meteor a 1940 one. The first flying in 1941 later and the second could have been flying in 1942 were the engines ready. The third one was a later 1941 requirement, flying in 1943. They were not fully fit for general service until 1947 even if they began in service in 1945/6. If we bring the engine development forwards by, say, three years then this would be then entering mass service in 1944 but with airframes of a three years older generation than IOTL. Standing back and looking at it objectively one wonders if late piston engined aeroplanes were not the best choice overall in those particular circumstances of the day. Very soon to be overtaken to be sure but the last of the old generation are often a sounder choice for the moment than the first of the new.

 

[Dronescapes]

All inventors stand on the shoulders of giants. Whittle perforce was aware of those before him and used their knowledge as does every inventor. This is normal. It would be poor scientist or engineer who wilfully ignored the work of others before him.

The first British jet aeroplane was a 1939 requirement and the Meteor a 1940 one. The first flying in 1941 later and the second could have been flying in 1942 were the engines ready. The third one was a later 1941 requirement, flying in 1943. They were not fully fit for general service until 1947 even if they began in service in 1945/6. If we bring the engine development forwards by, say, three years then this would be then entering mass service in 1944 but with airframes of a three years older generation than IOTL. Standing back and looking at it objectively one wonders if late piston engined aeroplanes were not the best choice overall in those particular circumstances of the day. Very soon to be overtaken to be sure but the last of the old generation are often a sounder choice for the moment than the first of the new.

Britain, just to generalize, had no interest in jet-powered aircraft until 1938/1939, after Whittle demonstrated that a jet engine worked (April 1937).
when in 1929 Whittle presented his idea to the Air Ministry, they (disgracefully) appointed Griffith as sole judge because they could not understand the use of it.
Keep in mind this timeline for reference:
1929 - He presents his project, which is rejected
Between that date and the first working turbojet in history (April 1937) a few things happen:
- He has zero support, and little or no funds.
- He is so broke that in 1934 he cannot even spare £5 to renew his patent (which ends up in Germany all over universities)
- Only in mid-1935 did he finally receive some limited private funding, and in less than 2 years, but still with very limited resources, he achieved his goal.
By then the money spent, in today's money, amounts to £200,000, a comical amount to achieve such a milestone.
today you hardly purchase a basic Ferrari with such an amount, let alone create something that was never done before!
I invite you to guess how much the (rich) couple Heinkel/Von Ohain spent starting in 1935, when the young German, fully funded and supported by his patron, started working on a turbojet, up until their first working engine, in September 1937 (with unfit propellant), and finally in March 1938 with suitable fuel.
Even with the massive advantages, and head start the Germans had, they still could not beat the brilliant Brit.
Von Ohain's very short first flight (being Heinkel a manufacturer, an airframe came easy) was also powered by a centrifugal turbojet, obviously inspired by Whittle's papers, as Von Ohain honestly confirmed with some reticence at first, for obvious reasons.
1929 to 1935 is 6 years lost on my clock, and the next couple of years, up until 1937, saw Whittle working with very limited resources, and not like Von Ohain stated in the interview (link below) with all the money he needed.
Let's assume that we factor in an extra year of the two (1935 to 1937), imagining that Whittle had the support that Von Ohain had, and that is a 7-year advantage for the Brits.
When you say 3, I think it is objectively incorrect.
There was a 6-year gap just between the starting point of both Whittle and Von Ohain.
I am quite sure that Britain could have easily had a jet aircraft by the beginning of the war.
Perhaps it would not have been exceptional, but if it proved to be worthy, resources would have been more available for reaching certain goals.
Up until the late 30s, Britain's interest was just not there at all.
Furthermore, jet aircraft, especially at the beginning, would have had enormous limitations (just like the Me 262 had).
The range would have been one. As a matter of fact no Me 262 (of the few that actually flew), ever crossed the channel.
Another issue would have been reliability, and we know that the Jumo engine was a disaster, with a handful of hours between overhauls, and around 25 hours between needing to be completely scrapped, quite pathetic. Whittle's solution was much more reliable, but also truly easy to develop to the max.
The people that truly recognized the potential, were the Americans, who immediately shipped Whittle and his invention to the U.S., where he was treated like royalty.
I think you can easily say that Whittle did everything right, and had the perfect strategic vision, but that he was painfully stopped in his tracks by a jealous person, bureaucracy, etc.
At the same time, you can also say that Germans got it all wrong when it comes to the jet engine.
Do not forget that the couple Heinkel/Von Ohain tried once more to build a centrifugal turbojet, probably realizing that the axial compressor was not going anywhere for years to come, as it really happened.
Some claim that materials were the only issue that those German engines had, when in fact they had a multitude of issues, even by the end of 1944, when the Me 262 was deployed without making any sort of difference, other than a propaganda wow factor, which h by then was absolutely useless.
I would not even compare Whittle and Von Ohain, as to me one was a true genius with outstanding intuition, whereas the other copied a bit, cheated a bit, and was pampered right from the start, but ultimately followed the wrong path, exactly like the people at Junkers did (at the time).
Their legacy amounts to almost nothing when it comes to the turbojet, whereas Whittle's work inspired engineers and companies across continents.
If you have not seen it already, I suggest you watch Whittle's biografy. Von Ohain is also interviewed in it:

View: https://youtu.be/G0T4-XG612Q

 

[Shortround6]

It was a long way from concept to working turbojet.

GE had 2/3rds of working turbojet in 1918 (taking a few liberties here).
What they did not have was the concept, and a working combustion chamber/burner can.

They had the compressor (maybe not good enough, you need just about 3 to 1 pressure ratio to get the engine to work).
They had the turbine, maybe a little sensitive to inlet temperature.
After the end of WW II, West engineering stuck a burner can between the parts of an surplus GE B type turbo and and came up with a small, turbojet drone engine. Navy was interested in a disposable engine for target drones.

A lot of the "inventers" had the concept, what they did not have was a decent compressor, either centrifugal or axial. The inventers could worry about the turbine later, after they had a compressor that had enough pressure to start up and run. Then they needed combustion chambers that would actually start combusting, and keep combusting long enough to actually burn out the turbine. A lot of simplification, but it took a lot of time to actually solve the problems. Read stories about test engines being started with hand held blow torches stuck though holes in the burner cans.

 

[GrauGeist]

And let's keep in mind that Junkers was working on an Axial-flow engine in 1935, but due to the typical RLM political posturing and overall apathy towards a "novel power plant", it was shuffled off.

The Germans held a considerable amount of potential but their jet program was not a priority until they were losing the war.

*had* the RLM taken the concept seriously in the mid/late 1930's, than the Birth engines as well as the BMW, Junkers and Daimler-Benz engines would have been better developed.
The shortage of nickle and chromium did not become an issue until 1942 (or so), fairly five years after earnest development could have shown results.

The He178 was a proof of concept, the He280, which was flown with temporary HeS8 engines proved that it's design was more than capable even with the limited power of it's installed (but not intended) engines.

Non of this is intended to take away from Whittle's accomplishments, but his centrifugal engine was an evolutionary dead-end.

It was (and is) the axial-flow engine that held promise and points back to Guillaume's original design.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

lol


The Jumo 004 was neither a flawed design or engineering disaster. The 004 was plagued by lack of rare metals which reduced its life. The design itself was an excellent design, and superior to Whittles. Had they not been faced with material shortages it would have been different.

 

[gruad]

July 1940: Heinrich Adler commanded the He 111 as they flew towards Portsmouth docks. He looked up and was reassured by the umbrella of 109s.

Suddenly faster than he saw before RAF roundels came to meet them. He had been warned that the Britishers had developed a new technology but were reluctant to use because of range considerations.

The plane in his peripheral vision went up under the onslaught of 20mm in the nose of the twin engined jet...

"Jettison bombs and make for home". A furious dogfight had broken out between the 109s and covering Spitfires, but the lumbering bombers stood no chance.

Hitler summoned Goering.

"Vat der f*ck is going on?"

"Mein Fuhrer, I did not know about the jet planes"

"Fool, I will have to use the U-boats to blockade the UK now. Sealion is off."

So Hitler will have more planes and a jet development program for his Eastern plans as an unintended consequence of Whittle getting his way in the 30s...

 

[yulzari]

Whittle's centrifugal compressor might have been an evolutionary dead end (although still in use in some turboprops) but it came with a solid base of existing centrifugal compressors so was an easier and faster way in. There are many ways to build a compressor and engines have run with most of them like the Lysholm screw type and even Roots lobe type. All three of the bits in a turbojet had been created separately prior to getting the whole act together. Even crude afterburning had been looked at. Proofs of concept are comparatively easy to make up but getting the beastie to run in a production form reliably and with a useful service life is the hard bit. By the time one comes to devices like the Napier Nomad the ICE has been reduced to a complicated combustion chamber to receive the compressed inlet air and supply hot expanded air to run the main shaft which turned a fan at the front and provide thrust at the back. Its advantage lay in the control of combustion which allowed far more economy than the (then) simple combustion can of the period jet engines.

The potential ways to make a 'jet' engine are far more varied than most realise. Viz the coal basket engines for German supersonic WW2 proposals, ICE driven compressors, ram air compressing and many more. One overlooked minor advantage is the strategic varied fuel possibilities in an industrial attrition air war. Paraffin for jets releases some more of the fractions from oil or coal that would have otherwise gone to fuel piston engined aeroplanes. Indeed piston engined jets have been actually built. Whittle chose a layout that maximised simplicity and existing knowledge and engineering.

That same reason was why Ohain went first for a centrifugal engine but was seduced into the axial compressor like the other German jet engine developments, Lockheed and Metrovick all of whom failed to get a long life engine together in time to be used in quantity. The Soviets were so disappointed with their German's efforts that they bought centrifugal ones from Rolls Royce for their first main service jet fighter and bomber with scarce dollar resources. Just imagine if Whittle had gone down the axial route with the meagre resources he had to hand. He was, perforce, an archetypal British man in a shed whilst his contemporaries had actual engineering works and real money to spend. It shaped his whole approach to one of building the possible not the desirable but production engineering was not his forte. More resources to him was a means of making a more powerful engine rather than one designed for easy production and long life.

 

[Shortround6]

but his centrifugal engine was an evolutionary dead-end.

True, sort of, in the long run. But it took until the early 50s for the Axial compressor to show actual dominance/superiority.

Somebody might want to tell all the small turboshaft engine makers that they building dead end engines

 

[Dronescapes]

People dismissing Whittle's accomplishments fail to recognize that his goal was to build a reliable, and easy-to-develop intermediary engine, precisely what he did.
Of course, he knew that the axial turbojet would eventually take over, but strategically speaking he was equally brilliant (unlike the Germans).
It is easy to have an opinion now, but back then (read the letter, it is being referred to as "sans propeller"), people had no idea where this invention would/could have gone.
Thinking that he pursued the wrong solution is purely simplistic, as his examiner/sole judge was an obvious expert on axial compressors and ages before the Germans.
Whittle did not have, nor ever had, a rich patron who fully funded him, supported him, and built test aircraft for him.
To say that Whittle's possibilities were severely limited it an understatement.
Take Tesla (the car, not the other undervalued genius), and go back in times 15 years ago,
Most leaders, including the entire automotive industry, were laughing at the automaker. Today 1/2 the planet is worshipping Elon Musk like the Messiah.
It is easy, today, to have opinions on something that disrupted the industry, but back them only few people foresaw what would happen.