Controversy

[Erfolg]

I no, it is unbelievable, but it might be true.

Its not a Russian either!

I was talking to a Swedish friend, emigrated to escape Socialism (early 80s I think). He told me that there was an exhibit at the Oslo Museum (Norway)of the turbine built by Jens Ellig at about 1900. Apparently getting a patent and proposing the unit for aircraft (difficult I know, when the first flyer has not yet left the ground).

I have also been told that a clergy man called John Barber, obtained a patent in Britain for a Gas Turbine in the 18th century.

I know from working in a company that at that time made jet engines that the Brayton cycle was devised by an American at the turn of the 19th century.

At least some of this is true.

I am left wondering what he actually did first.

Or is he the inventor of the jet in the same way that Dyson invented the cyclone?

Controversially

Erfolg

[Allan Jordan]

Hi Erfolg, Something tells me that you may have really put the cat among the pidgeons with this one! I'm getting ready to duck!
Regards Allan J..TTFN
PS. I have an article that suggests the Wright Bros. were not the first to fly with an engine, I think this might be too much for some though!!

[Allan Jordan]

Hi Erfolg, How come no red hot postings on this topic? Are they all asleep or what? Thought that Myron would have had a few thoughts on the subject! Regards Allan J ..TTFN

[Tim Mackey]

perhaps we just dont care .........

[Alistair Taylor]

Everyone knows that Whittle was the inventor of the jet turbine because Whittle is English, and all history books are written in English .

Of course the Wright brothers weren't the first to fly a plane with an engine, they were just the first to boast about it publicly. Typical Yankee Doodles .

hang on, it's not April 1st is it?

 AliT

[Allan Jordan]

Hi Alistair, No it's not April 1st. I will dig out the article as soon as I can. The claimant was a New Zealander. Regards Allan J..TTFN

[Michael Hicklin]

There was an article in one of the "other" magazines a few years ago - authored by a very well known aeromodelling personality - which asserted that Gustav Weisskopf flew before the Wrights.  It was all to do with a German team who had recently flown a replica of Weisskopf's design for a TV documentary. 

The writer invited comment from readers so I sent him a letter which put forward several reasons why the claims were insupportable.   For instance the replica flew with modern engines (the original designs were thought unsafe even to bench test!).  Also Weisskopf had claimed at the time that he sent the original aloft with no pilot and with sandbags for ballast! There were several other points advanced and I did not even know at the time that the German replica team had altered Weisskopf's design significantly in the light of modern knowledge. 

My letter elicited neither a comment in the mag or even a reply from the author.  Oh well.

[Gareth Child]

The first powered flight was made by Richard Pearse in New Zealand. Link here. As for Whittle - yes, there were other people who thought of the concept of the turbine - in much the same way that Da Vinci came up with the concept of the helicopter. Link here. In the words of Jeremy Clarkson, thinking "Wouldn't it be a good idea if..." doesn't make you an inventor.

[Erfolg]

In the case of building a turbine, I get the impression that there are many claiments.

It would appear that the Swede did actually build one, I looked on the Stockholm museum web site, there is a picture of what perports to be the machine. It does not say anything about if it worked though.

It would also appear that Brown Boveri (Swiss Engineering company) built a gas turbine to power a German Steel companies Open Hearth furnace. Supposed to be to ineffient to be practical.

Of course Von Pabst appears to have built a working Propane powered jet engine before Whittle built his.

I am beginning to think that this is really a Alexander Fleming (penicillin). Logi Baird and Dyson, type situation.   Fleming did not discover the medicinal properties of penicillin, Baird did not discover or develop the Electronic Television, nor did Dyson invent the cyclone.

 Although granted a patent in the UK, (although John Barbers patent predates Whittles) I wonder if he would have got one in other countries? I am also beginning to think that being British in a war situation may have helped, building up his claim. 

I am now really puzzled what Whittle really did, although I acknowledge he contributed ( certainly to the allied cause), it would be nice to acknowledge the others if appropriate (particularly Barber, we seem to owe a lot to the clergy). 

Erfolg

[Jim Newman]

Looks like there are a lot of cats among many pigeons. Let's take the case of first POWERED flights.....As a writer on the left side of The Pond I have had occasion to dig fairly deeply into those claims. In the case of both Pearse and Whitehead (Weisskopf), in neither case has there been any credible documented evidence, i.e. reliable witnesses, news reports nor photos,  proving that either was the first to make a powered flight.  However, the Wrights first powered flight is supported by photos and witnesses.

So now let us take the case of the young serving RAF (my old "firm" officer that got into messing with gas turbines. Young Frank DEVELOPED the gas turbine to where it achieved success far beyond that of the Germans. The disadvantage that the Germans faced was the high explosive bearing manufacturers brand names in the UK and USA. The lack of nimonic steels (and, later, shortage of fuel) put them at a disadvantage in terms of short engine life expectancy. Whittle was doing well at his task until the UK government (true to form, even today) took the project and his company, Power Jets Ltd., from him and gave it to a group headed by a fellow that had only STEAM turbine technology behind him. That is a vastly different tech than GAS turbine technology. Any wonder, then, that Whittle left the RAF and headed to the USA where his experience was appreciated. So...after the government gave the US samples of our RR Nene, jet engine design and devopment took off like house afire...under the auspices of Pratt & Whitney and also General Electric.  I hope that I have cast some enlightenment.

[Erfolg]

The following time line, is truncated from Wikipedia, "jet engine time line".

If Frank was not British, would he hailed as the true inventor or a major contributer to the jet engine. 

The leadup (1791-1931) 

• 1791: John Barber receives British patent #1833 for A Method for Rising Inflammable Air for the Purposes of Producing Motion and Facilitating Metallurgical Operations. In it he describes a turbine.
• 1884: Charles Algernon Parsons patents the steam turbine. clearly describing the gas turbine.
• 1903: Ægidius Elling builds a gas turbine using a centrifugal compressor which runs under its own power. By most definitions, this is the first working gas turbine.
• 1903-1906: The team of Armengaud and Lemale in France build a complete gas turbine engine.
• 1917: J.S. Harris patents a "Motor Jet" design
• 1921: Maxime Guillaume patents the axial-flow turbine engine. Although sightly different in form, the design is significantly similar to future jet engines in operation.
• 1926: Alan Arnold Griffith publishes his groundbreaking paper Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design, changing the low confidence in jet engines. going on to mathematically demonstrate that a practical engine is definitely possible and showing how to build a turboprop.
• 1929: Frank Whittle's thesis on future aircraft design is published. In it he talks about the needs for high-speed flight and the use of motorjets as the only reasonable solution to the problem of propeller efficiency.
• 1930: Whittle realizes that the compressor of a motorjet could be powered by the turbine, and quickly designs a complete jet

 First steps (1933-1938)

• 1933: Hans von Ohain writes his thesis at the University of Goettingen,
• 1934: von Ohain hires a local mechanic, Max Hahn, to build his a prototype of his engine design at Hahn's garage.
• 1935: Whittle allows his patent to lapse after finding himself unable to pay the £5 renewal fee.
• 1936: von Ohain is introduced to Ernst Heinkel.
• 1936: Junkers starts work on axial-flow turboprop
• 1936: A stationary gas turbine is installed at the Sun Oil refinery
• March, 1937: The Heinkel HeS 1 experimental hydrogen fueled centrifugal engine is tested
• April, 1937: Whittle's experimental centrifugal engine is tested September,
• 1937: von Ohain's Heinkel HeS 1 is converted to run on gasoline1937
• 1938: A small team at BMW builds and flies a simple thermojet. They turn to true jet engine design.
• 1938: The Heinkel He 178 V1 jet testbed is completed
• 1938: The Heinkel HeS 3 "flight quality" engine is tested. This is the first truly usable jet engine. The engine flies on a Heinkel He 118 later that year, eventually becoming the first aircraft to be powered by jet power alone.
• 1938: Wagner's axial-flow engine is tested at Junkers.

  1939, Flight

• A stationary gas turbine is installed in a new electrical generating plant in Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
• A 2,200 horsepower gas turbine is built by Asea Brown Boveri and used to power an experimental train
• BMW's team led by Hermann Östrich tests their axial-flow design.
• Bramo starts work on two axial-flow

August: Heinkel He 178 V1 flies for the first time, powered by the HeS 3B.

[Jim Newman]

Well done, Mr Erfolg!

A very useful time line for the future reference of all of us. As I implied, Frank W was NOT the inventor. That time line adequately points up that fact. However, he merely was a developer and his expertise served us well, until the job was taken from him.

Nevertheless, the UK still is doing rather well....judging by the RR labels that I see on the cowling sides of some US aircraft. Now-a-days I am just a "window watcher" instead of driving the beasts.

[Owen Hailey]

Hi all.

I was very intrested in this Thread, as I have played with rame jets in the past, and about two years ago thought I would see if adding a heat sorse to a ducted fan whitch came out of a small hair dryer would give it more thrust. I fund that this made the fan have more trust as I turned up the gas to the home made bean can conbusion camber the fan increced in speed and I decided to turn of the power to the motor only to find that it got even faster and at this point came to the conclution that there was no need to drive the fan with the motor as the thing had become self powered to the point where it was demanding so much air that it was pulling the fan round by vacume and this ment that once in a model plain it would be even more powerfull the faster the plain whent though the air. I found an old plain and straped this thing to it and tryed to fly it but it was so fast I lost it and have to this day never seen it again.

a need for speed OWEN 

[winchweight]

I always thought he invented the axial flow turbine, and actually the germans invented the centrifugal turbine. Or was it the other way around?

[Erfolg]

I think you have always had to pay for your honours, or support the correct poliical party.

Erfolg

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Eric

I had thought about pulse jets during the fan discussion and wondered about the need for the inlet valve. I thought that the motor must be essentially one speed in that, the charge has to be in the right fuel ait ratio for an explosive combustion, rather than just burning. Which generates the pressure to close the inlet valve, the charge then continues out down the outlet pipe, sufficiently fast to cause a partial vacuum both to open the inlet valve and draw in the fuel. The cycle starts again initiated by a glow plug? The exhaust tube length is almost certainly critical in determing the cycle length as well as the characteristics of the inlet valve. I concluded that it needed the inlet valve to work.

I have also thought of my parafin blow lamp and wondered if that generated any worth while thrust. I did restart it, out of nostalga really and concluded that it did not seem to. Incredible amounts of heat and noise. My wife said to me why on earth are you messing with that old thing, be careful you do not set yourselve on fire or anything else. I think she had a point.

Of course it would have been far simpar and just as relevant to use my butain torch, which i have since done. I could not get the scales to recognise any thrust. At one point had a jet of burning fuel threatening everything around (not to good on their backs).

I would be interested to see the Owens device as photograph in flight and as a static test run. Some idea of the thrust would be nice, as well as its fuel consumption.

Back to flashing now.

Erfolg 

[Jim Newman]

Well said, Mr Erfolg.

The pulse jet had NO moving parts, other than the "flapper " intake valve. The jet  produced a series of explosions....the pressure wave of which slammed the intake valve closed.... after which the hot, expanded air scuttled down the jet pipe, thus leaving low pressure immediately behind the valve. The noise of a passing V-1 was similar to a Norton at "full chat"!

That valve then promptly "sucked open" to admit another charge of air and a squirt of fuel.  Although, like a remaining few of us who were "eyeball to eyeball" with one or two, I don't know enough of V-1s to know about the fuel metering, which as you imply, must have been fairly critical.

Am I the only one who recalls the American made Dynajet of the 1950's? Johny Nunn's Dynajet , installed in a control line Vampire, at the 1948 Northern Heights Rally held on Hawker's old 'drome, Langley, Bucks...made the most apalling din. There was a first rate, cut-away illustration of the Dynajet in one of the early Aeromodeller Annuals. I believe it was executed by Peter Holland, who later inspired my own pen and ink efforts. Plainly seen is the flower petal shaped intake valve of spring steel. Because of critical fuel levels, the Dynjet was largely unsuitable for free flight and RC.

Ah! Aeromodeller. Fond days....when British model magazines were staffed by noble and respected editors and the English contained between those Rupert Moore covers was nothing less than classic.

[Owen Hailey]

hi all.

I think my home made effort worked more by chance than by design, as there seam-es to be a lot of hot air as to how they should or should not be made.

not so fast now Owen.

[Owen Hailey]

Hi Ron.

I think you must be wright brouther we have come the full circle and shot of the track keep it coming it gives me a god laf,

take flyt Owen. 

[Owen Hailey]

Hi Ron.

So it all a smoke screen and a flash in pan type of thing

dont take the rocket Owen.