Amazingly cool and interesting plane footage
Discussion
If UK manufacturers had developed jet aero engines a few years earlier and the RAF had been equipped with first generation jets equivalent to early Meteors or Vampires in 1940. How much an advantage would they have been? Given the limitations of the first jet engines, and the fact you need swept wings to take full advantage of jets, I'm not sure they would have been a game changer.
You don't need swept wings on a jet at all. Even straight winged jets can go fast. The secret is a THIN wing. Sweep back helps but it isn't vital.
The problem with early gas turbines is that they -
a) were slow to respond to throttle movements
b) had high fuel consumption
c) were realtively unreliable - especially early axial flow designs
The problem with early gas turbines is that they -
a) were slow to respond to throttle movements
b) had high fuel consumption
c) were realtively unreliable - especially early axial flow designs
Eric Mc said:
There is a general assumption when telling tales of pioneering British science and technology that the lone genius gets stalled at every turn by Government intransigence. It's not actually as straightforward as that and often it is the Government who are actually the silent heroes in the background.
Certainly that isn't the impression you get from watching the interview. In the years 1936 to 1941, the government had lots of competing priorities that demanded urgent attention - like not having the country completely subjugated by an attrocious regime. Whittle and his ideas were fairly low on that list when just trying to ramp up the production of "normal" aircraft was such a massive headache.
As I said earlier, despite all that, in many ways it was the government who did give Whittle the time and space to develop his ideas on his own. They could very well have refused him that permission as he was a very good test pilot and had already been involved in seaplane development work down at Calshot. He could have been blocked from "wasting his time" on work that did not seem to be of vital importance. But they didn't do that.
In fact, they tried to help find him a manufacturing partner. The problem was that the obvious partners were bogged down with their projects too - some of which were really causing massive problems (the Rolls Royce Vulture being a good example).
As I said earlier, despite all that, in many ways it was the government who did give Whittle the time and space to develop his ideas on his own. They could very well have refused him that permission as he was a very good test pilot and had already been involved in seaplane development work down at Calshot. He could have been blocked from "wasting his time" on work that did not seem to be of vital importance. But they didn't do that.
In fact, they tried to help find him a manufacturing partner. The problem was that the obvious partners were bogged down with their projects too - some of which were really causing massive problems (the Rolls Royce Vulture being a good example).
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 28th December 12:17
Eric Mc said:
In the years 1936 to 1941, the government had lots of competing priorities that demanded urgent attention - like not having the country completely subjugated by an attrocious regime. Whittle and his ideas were fairly low on that list when just trying to ramp up the production of "normal" aircraft was such a massive headache.
As I said earlier, despite all that, in many ways it was the government who did give Whittle the time and space to develop his ideas on his own. They could very well have refused him that permission as he was a very good test pilot and had already been involved in seaplane development work down at Calshot. He could have been blocked from "wasting his time" on work that did not seem to be of vital importance. But they didn't do that.
In fact, they tried to help find him a manufacturing partner. The problem was that the obvious partners were bogged down with their projects too - some of which were really causing massive problems (the Rolls Royce Vulture being a good example).
It sounds like it could be repeated today - it's a real nightmare trying to get good ideas looked at and prioritised in any sort of sensible fashion.As I said earlier, despite all that, in many ways it was the government who did give Whittle the time and space to develop his ideas on his own. They could very well have refused him that permission as he was a very good test pilot and had already been involved in seaplane development work down at Calshot. He could have been blocked from "wasting his time" on work that did not seem to be of vital importance. But they didn't do that.
In fact, they tried to help find him a manufacturing partner. The problem was that the obvious partners were bogged down with their projects too - some of which were really causing massive problems (the Rolls Royce Vulture being a good example).
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 28th December 12:17
When you look at the numbers of pilots lost in Meteor & Canberra training accidents after the war (many practicing engine failures and being unable to counteract the offset thrustline), we could have scored an own goal had these two been available for widespread service earlier.0
These are the losses from 1952 on, so many of the early Meteor losses are omitted:
UK Military Aircraft losses by type 1952-2021
http://www.ukserials.com/losses_xref.htm
These are the losses from 1952 on, so many of the early Meteor losses are omitted:
UK Military Aircraft losses by type 1952-2021
http://www.ukserials.com/losses_xref.htm
Edited by GliderRider on Wednesday 28th December 14:23
Eric Mc said:
You don't need swept wings on a jet at all. Even straight winged jets can go fast. The secret is a THIN wing.
The catch being it's more difficult to generate lift with a thin wing so take-off and landing speeds creep up and up. Lockheed F104 Starfighter was a case in point,"The Starfighter featured a radical design, with thin, stubby wings attached farther back on the fuselage than most contemporary aircraft. The wing provided excellent supersonic and high-speed, low-altitude performance, but also poor turning capability and high landing speeds. The Starfighter's poor safety record, especially in Luftwaffe service, brought it substantial criticism. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989."
Regarding engines it's my understanding that aircraft piston engine development came almost to a standstill once jets took over. The high cost of certification procedures combined with relatively low sales volumes left manufacturers reluctant to change designs that were known to work. For reasons that are obvious, reliability was and remains a high priority.
Panamax said:
The catch being it's more difficult to generate lift with a thin wing so take-off and landing speeds creep up and up. Lockheed F104 Starfighter was a case in point,
"The Starfighter featured a radical design, with thin, stubby wings attached farther back on the fuselage than most contemporary aircraft. The wing provided excellent supersonic and high-speed, low-altitude performance, but also poor turning capability and high landing speeds. The Starfighter's poor safety record, especially in Luftwaffe service, brought it substantial criticism. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989."
Regarding engines it's my understanding that aircraft piston engine development came almost to a standstill once jets took over. The high cost of certification procedures combined with relatively low sales volumes left manufacturers reluctant to change designs that were known to work. For reasons that are obvious, reliability was and remains a high priority.
Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters, an Album by Hawkwind’s Robert Calvert, explains it all"The Starfighter featured a radical design, with thin, stubby wings attached farther back on the fuselage than most contemporary aircraft. The wing provided excellent supersonic and high-speed, low-altitude performance, but also poor turning capability and high landing speeds. The Starfighter's poor safety record, especially in Luftwaffe service, brought it substantial criticism. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989."
Regarding engines it's my understanding that aircraft piston engine development came almost to a standstill once jets took over. The high cost of certification procedures combined with relatively low sales volumes left manufacturers reluctant to change designs that were known to work. For reasons that are obvious, reliability was and remains a high priority.
Panamax said:
The catch being it's more difficult to generate lift with a thin wing so take-off and landing speeds creep up and up. Lockheed F104 Starfighter was a case in point,
"The Starfighter featured a radical design, with thin, stubby wings attached farther back on the fuselage than most contemporary aircraft. The wing provided excellent supersonic and high-speed, low-altitude performance, but also poor turning capability and high landing speeds. The Starfighter's poor safety record, especially in Luftwaffe service, brought it substantial criticism. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989."
Regarding engines it's my understanding that aircraft piston engine development came almost to a standstill once jets took over. The high cost of certification procedures combined with relatively low sales volumes left manufacturers reluctant to change designs that were known to work. For reasons that are obvious, reliability was and remains a high priority.
The Starfighter is often (almost predictably) cited as an example of how not to design a supersonic fighter of that era. In actual fact, as I have mentioned many times here, the Luftwaffe's excessive losses were more connected to their inadequate training methods. Other air forces using F-104s did not suffer the same loss rates. Loss rates for similar aircraft of that era, such as the Lightning or the MiG 21, were much the same."The Starfighter featured a radical design, with thin, stubby wings attached farther back on the fuselage than most contemporary aircraft. The wing provided excellent supersonic and high-speed, low-altitude performance, but also poor turning capability and high landing speeds. The Starfighter's poor safety record, especially in Luftwaffe service, brought it substantial criticism. The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989."
Regarding engines it's my understanding that aircraft piston engine development came almost to a standstill once jets took over. The high cost of certification procedures combined with relatively low sales volumes left manufacturers reluctant to change designs that were known to work. For reasons that are obvious, reliability was and remains a high priority.
As for later piston designs, piston engine development did continue for a few years after the end of World War 2 but the designs were getting more and more complex as they tried to coax as much extra horse power as they could. The gas turbine became available just at the right time so, once basic reliability had been sorted out, it was obvious trhat the future of engine development had to rest with the gas turbine - initially for military aircraft. But by the mid to late 1950s it was clear that the jet was going to be the future for civil airliners too.
Short promo video of the first Emirates A380 getting its planned interior makeover.
TLFL said:
The next Emirates A380 aircraft lined up for refurb is A6-EUW, and work is expected to be completed by the end of this month.
As the program progresses, engineers will work simultaneously on 2 aircraft. This means that one aircraft in the fleet will be withdrawn from service every eight days and transferred to Emirates Engineering facilities. By 2024, all 67 A380s assigned for refurbishment will have returned to service. Emirates will then begin work on its 53 Boeing 777s earmarked for this project. The airline expects to complete the program in 2025.
As the program progresses, engineers will work simultaneously on 2 aircraft. This means that one aircraft in the fleet will be withdrawn from service every eight days and transferred to Emirates Engineering facilities. By 2024, all 67 A380s assigned for refurbishment will have returned to service. Emirates will then begin work on its 53 Boeing 777s earmarked for this project. The airline expects to complete the program in 2025.
January 5th 2023 ,Largest Launch of C-17s Puts 24 in the Air Over Charleston
https://youtu.be/ozD8B7DUjUI
https://youtu.be/ozD8B7DUjUI
MartG said:
Used to the size of the De Gaulle, the French pilots must have felt like landing a Cessna at JFK 
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff