Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
For me what is interesting is how the same names keep cropping up all over the place especially Griffith, Hives, Hooker and Wilde. I was trained as a metallurgist and he was behind much of the things I was trained in and worked in up to retirement, but his work also involved development of the jet engine and he is also the reason why engine tuners, even now polish conrods.And I thought Metrovick was Russian! Very educational.
Axial compressors as an "idea" may date to before WW I for industrial uses (steel mills?) but practical (real world) efficiency was never great in the early years.
Insurance companies don't think twins are safer.You would think that, but for various reasons some types couldn't run, or didn't run very well on one engine.
It seems counter intuitive but those guys should know.Insurance companies don't think twins are safer.
Wrong Worry in Twins Versus Singles
I was told the Canadian bush pilot theory was that a single was safer than a twin. Engine failures occur most often under maximum stress which is during take off. Two engines double your chances of failure.
Aircraft oriented people tend to think that the gas turbine was invented specifically for flight. It was not. The first successful gas turbine was industrial and it had an axial compressor. It was in operation for 63 years.Axial compressors as an "idea" may date to before WW I for industrial uses (steel mills?) but practical (real world) efficiency was never great in the early years.
For a jet engine (or turbo prop/shaft ) engine to work the compressor needs to use less power than the turbine section makes. Some of the early industrial engines could barely run (or didn't run) let alone provide extra power.
What was secret (or tried to be kept secret) was how to get all the stages in the axial flow compressor to play nicely together. If one stage stalls or misbehaves the entire assembly is useless. Figuring out which stage is the culprit and why was the hard part.
It had a long gestation...… In 1900 Brown, Boveri and Co and The Parsons Foreign Patents Co entered into a contract for the sale and manufacture of the well-known Parsons' steam turbine in the following countries: France, Germany, Russia, Switzerland and Italy.[5] Charles Algernon Parsons - Graces GuideAircraft oriented people tend to think that the gas turbine was invented specifically for flight. It was not. The first successful gas turbine was industrial and it had an axial compressor. It was in operation for 63 years.
https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/resourcefiles/aboutasme/who we are/engineering history/landmarks/135-neuchatel-gas-turbine.pdf
The Swiss were the real pioneers of gas turbines and turbo chargers, in particular Brown Boveri.
https://library.e.abb.com/public/0d9d64cb85414b68890bb45bf805ca8e/bbc_mitteilungen_1941_e_08-09.pdf
BBC started making axial compressors in 1927. The Velox boilers were an intermediate step to the gas turbine.
We dealt with similar issues at NASA, in determining how much redundancy a system should have.It seems counter intuitive but those guys should know.
There are twins and twins. A Hornet could take off land and perform an air display on one engine, at the other end of the scale there were types like the Manchester Wellington and Hampden. A Manchester with full load fell like a stone on one engine, if it jettisoned its bombs it struggled to maintain altitude. It was a night bomber and UK was blacked out so at night you cant just "put it down", it took between 30 seconds and a minute for the crew to bail out. On one engine the pilot couldnt bail out when the rest had gone, as soon as he let go of the controls the plane would spin, so he had to kill the other engine, hope it stayed straight and level then get out. To go through all that your engine needs to fail at a convenient, high altitude. In a Hampden, the navigator couldnt start to get out until the pilot had gone, how does that work?It seems counter intuitive but those guys should know.
Badly?There are twins and twins. A Hornet could take off land and perform an air display on one engine, at the other end of the scale there were types like the Manchester Wellington and Hampden. A Manchester with full load fell like a stone on one engine, if it jettisoned its bombs it struggled to maintain altitude. It was a night bomber and UK was blacked out so at night you cant just "put it down", it took between 30 seconds and a minute for the crew to bail out. On one engine the pilot couldnt bail out when the rest had gone, as soon as he let go of the controls the plane would spin, so he had to kill the other engine, hope it stayed straight and level then get out. To go through all that your engine needs to fail at a convenient, high altitude. In a Hampden, the navigator couldnt start to get out until the pilot had gone, how does that work?
Even worse when the pilot is dead at the controls.Badly?
No, Lockheed had their own proprietary design for an engine for the L-133, the L-1000. Interestingly it included an afterburner, which was really ahead of the times. It never proceeded any further than this mock-up;
View attachment 613294
Photo Credit: Sturmvogel 66
Jets - well the question was "best design in ww2", so we can only give 1st prize to Germany and second prize to the UK with Japan and USA bringing up the rear by a long way.I'm a bit ignorant on this subject.
But I guess Merlin was amazing, Griffon was good, so England has a good reputation.
For the USA, Pratt Whitney?
Junkers Jumo for Germany?
After 135 missions and a total of 21,030 orbits of the planet over the course of 30 years, I'd say the loss of two out of a fleet of five is not a bad track record.Interesting but not sure I would use the Space Shuttle as an example when talking about reliability and redundancy.
I first read about it in the late 1960s, think of what cars were on the road then.After 135 missions and a total of 21,030 orbits of the planet over the course of 30 years, I'd say the loss of two out of a fleet of five is not a bad track record.
I would say an average crash rate of once every 54 flights was not very good at all.After 135 missions and a total of 21,030 orbits of the planet over the course of 30 years, I'd say the loss of two out of a fleet of five is not a bad track record.