• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Early British gas turbine development

tartle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
So while waiting for some early aviation docs to appear at Kew National Archives I started on early gas turbines.... I had often wondered what would follow the W2s at Power Jets and found there was a project for the W4/100; 2 centrifugal compressors, reverse flow combustion chambers and 2 stage axial turbine on a single shaft giving 4,000lb. The CC design seems to be a bit out-of-date but is probably to cut down length.
Dwg is a quick capture eventually I'll get a proper copy.
 

Attachments

jmkorhonen

Diletantte
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Website
jmkorhonen.net
tartle: excellent, thanks.

By any chance - could you enlighten us mere mortals with tales of early RR work on turbine air cooling? I actually asked the RR Heritage Trust Archives about whether they have material that could be possibly relevant to this, and although they do, they suggested I try the National Archives first - but I'd sure appreciate some pointers as to what to look for ;).

PS. still working on the z factors for German engines - apparently, misplaced some drawings during a move. Oh well...
 

tartle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
OK ... I'll put up some stuff starting in a few days time.... in the technology stream we set up.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
25
I have a question about the de Havilland Gyron Junior turbojet engine. Does anybody know what it's fuel consumption was? And it's weight? I'm trying to work out if substituting Bristol Olympus engines for the Gyron Juniors in the Bristol 188 would have resulted in a significantly better endurance to allow it to actually do the research it was intended to.
 

tartle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
Try searching the Flight Magazine GT special editions... say 1957, 1962... you should find all you need there... saves someone else doing it.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
88
from Wilkinson 1958/59

Olympus 200 : 0.8 lb/lbt/hr

Gyron Junior DGJ-10 : 0.9lb/lbt/hr

You also want Tony Buttler's article on the 188 in 'Wings of Fame' 18.

Chris
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
25
Thanks Chris. Very kind of you so only marginally better. I'll see if I find that article somewhere. I've often wondered why Bristol went on the 188 with a non-Bristol engine...
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
88
Bristol looked at fitting four and six Orpheus B. Or.12 (B. Or.3 fuel consumption listed in Wilkinson 58/59 as 1.06 lb/lbt/hr and the Orpheus 803 is listed as 1.08lb/lbt/hr in Wilkinson 64/65)

Chris
 

tartle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
One of the key strategic problems was that the design of the 188 was wrong! Ted Talbot's book 'Concorde: a designer's life' describes the awful layout of the whole propulsion system. Talbot started as an aerodynamicist and ended his career as chief design engineer describes the problems of supersonic propulsion design and pints out the failures that were not revealed to the technical press. He points out that it is the basic design flaws that decide the 'failures' not the choice of engine...he sums it up on page 217:
"Many of the failures on these high-speed projects were associated with the power plants, the combinations of air inlet, engine and exhaust nozzle were so critical to good, efficient and safe operation of the aircraft as a whole. The Bristol 188 was no exception to the rule.
some truly some truly supersonic projects could only be counted as failures. This list would include the B-70.... the B-58 Hustler....the B-1......."
He then describes the problems with the SR-71 Blackbird that any normal service person would describe as a failure:
"It had remarkable but sensitive power plants. Should the aircraft depart from the design condition at high speed and cause an oscillation to occur in one or other engine, the rapid changes in thrust would cause the cockpit to move rapidly...There was a small elite band of intrepid aviators in america that belonged to 'The Split Helmet Club'"
Have a look at this for discussion of the complexity of problem... so changing 188's engine is not likely to improve anything ... a complete redesign was necessary.
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
529
Reaction score
29
K-Man: Bristol did not go with a non-Bristol engine. UK aero industry almost never spent its own money. We Pipers paid, so we called the tunes.

1953: Korea whimpering to stalemate, but we all presumed Sovs were recoiling the better to spring on Hanover. We were scheming "rockets" so we presumed deadly GAAPs were onway there too. Higher/faster bombers must succeed V-craft. RAE believed the (Meteor-esque) layout+stainless steel were way to go. MoS believed what their boffins said and invited bids, Avro 730 accepted. A proof-of-concept vehicle was clearly needed, to prove aerodynamics, fabrication-in-exotica, and supersonic intake design.

In 1954 MoS/RAE perceived themselves as scientists, "firms" as rude mechanicals, to do what their betters told them. MoS chose where to place Research jobs. Proper firms should be busy on proper products...and the Medium Bombers swamped them. So AWA+Bristol were idle and bored as airframe candidates; DH Engines ditto likewise. The cloned AWA+Bristol schemes were melded as T.188, much fabrication to go to AWA. Both would have built chunks of Avro 730. Intake design was the fief of RAE/Bedford (IIRC: Dr.Seddon, seen in MoS as the only man who understood such things). So also-ran teams were given the orphan job of building 5 T.188. MoS chose PS.50 to give it a Flying Test Bed - it was to have powered Blue Steel Mk.2 and SR.177. Drift. The chop came for the lot in 1957. Some US MWDP dribble-funds caused MoS to not chop T.188/PS.50, on the modest Aircraft Research budget...but unloved. Maybe it could have been made real (see artwork in Buttler's Hypersonics), but...>50,000ft in 1960s? Ask Gary Powers for his view.
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
> 50,000ft?
Isn't it true that the poor old E.E. Lightning on twin R-R Avon re-heat power could zoom past there easily,
- but were constrained by D. Sandys penny-pinching refusal to allow coordinated developments which
would deal with pilot physiological (pressure limited) & high Mach heat (shock cone/windscreen) limits?
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
25
It didn't need to zoom. There are accounts of Lightnings climbing on their own power above 60,000ft with ease. Two in the book, "English Electric Lightning: Britain's first and last supersonic fighter," by Tim McLelland.
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
Yes, ta, the E.E. Lightning did have a fairly impressive power-to-weight ratio/high Mach capability for its day,
& I've always wondered why it was not utilized in any record attempts like the Soviets & USAF/USN
did with their contemporary MiG 21 & F-104/F-4 types..
 

tartle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
The magazine 'The Aviation Historian' has a free taster that includes Lightning details reproduced below...U2 can intercept aircraft at 60,000ft and Lightning speed! It is a high quality magazine.
 

Attachments

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
Most excellent stuff, thanks T,

& precisely the kind of thing that the jet-bent RAF with their poxy Meat-boxes,

- so embarrassingly -

could not do - to PRU Mk 19 Spits on similar exercises - post-war..
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,181
Reaction score
58
Could have been more interesting with this: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12762.0.html
 

charleybarley

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
2
the combinations of air inlet, engine and exhaust nozzle were so critical
For the challenges to the Bristol188 which Ted Talbot says was aimed at M2 and then M3
we have the development story for the SR-71 intake, design point M3.2
http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2013/HowInletsWork8-19-13.pdf

There was a small elite band of intrepid aviators in america that belonged to 'The Split Helmet
There's also a look at trying to control the violent unstarts, at least up to M2.8 (SST research).
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750021055.pdf

For an insight into the nozzle challenges for the M2 goal we have the B-58 story.
The existing J79 nozzle (F-104) had to be more efficient at M2. This led to the 'low base drag nozzle' which also had improved internal expansion.
All told in SAE680295 "Variable-Geometry Exhaust Nozzles and their Effects on Airplane Performance".
 

charleybarley

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
2
More impressive than the U-2 intercepts...

"The target climbed from 65,000 to 80,000' while flying a 180 deg turn. He was surprised that the Lightning which carried out the next intercept overtook him in a descent through his altitude. His last run was into six figures and he was safe."
Ref Flt Lt Dave Roome based at Tengah in the late 1960's. "Lightning from the Cockpit" Peter Caygill

(RB-57F doing high altitude meteorological trials on turbulence prior to Concorde services to Singapore)
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
88
Can anyone tell me what 'DAMF' stands for?

Yes, I have seen the definitions on the net, but I doubt these would be used in a 1952 Armstrong Siddeley Motors paper on a turbojet.

The context is: 'An axial flow jet propulsion unit of 250 lb/sec DAMF.'

From the units, I'm assuming MF stands for 'mean flow' but probably wrong. There's no entry for 'DAMF' in the sainted Bill's 'Big Book of Aircraft Words' and the glossary in his book on Rolls-Royce Aero-engines says 'if you've bought this, you don't need a glossary'. There's nothing in the two Wilkinsons I have.

Thanks in advance.

Chris
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
Is it a steam turbine Chris? - Damf being the German for same - or 'wet' (ADI) thrust, perhaps..
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
88
That never crossed my mind. Could it be water injection?

All the catalogue entry says is:

'An axial flow jet propulsion unit of 250 lb/sec DAMF.'

Perhaps MF stands for Mass Flow?

Chris
 

tartle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
When I was doing performance calculations using 3 ft long slide rules DAMF=Design Air Mass Flow
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
845
Reaction score
40
charleybarley said:
His last run was into six figures and he was safe."

IOW "Only above 100,000 feet could they not get him"?? Wow.



I have seen at least one YouTube vid of a Lightning letting loose with a Red Top or Firestreak (I can't tell for sure) - the curvature of the earth is clearly visible and the sky is more black than blue. So that's with what we assume is a fully-loaded, fully-dragged-up model, not one that's been stripped for a record. Impressive.
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
845
Reaction score
40
Kadija_Man said:
I have a question about the de Havilland Gyron Junior turbojet engine. Does anybody know what it's fuel consumption was? And it's weight? I'm trying to work out if substituting Bristol Olympus engines for the Gyron Juniors in the Bristol 188 would have resulted in a significantly better endurance to allow it to actually do the research it was intended to.

If not endurance, at least performance. (But with a different engine comes a different-sized nacelle, altered aerodynamics and weights, etc. etc. It ain't the same Bristol 188 by that point, and direct comparison becomes somewhat invalid.)


The Gyron Junior seems to have disappointed in both the platforms in which it's best known (Bristol 188 and Buccaneer S.1) as an underpowered, over-ravenous affair. One wonders what might have happened if F.155T had gone ahead and Armstrong-Whitworth's four-engined submission had won through.
 

tartle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
Whilst I am waiting for documents to appear after being selected from the 100 miles of shelves at the National Archives I idly bounce round Kew's weird and wonderful cataloguing system...aptly named Discovery. Today it was a toss up between the Fairey P. 24 installation dwg or Armstrong Siddeley's ASH GA and description. The GA is copied below and represents the Bomber engine version; see second attachment that describes the bomber and fighter version .....tbc
 

Attachments

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
26
One rotor, one speed, one shaft and two bearings. What could possibly go wrong?
 

merriman

David Douglass Merriman lll
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
261
Reaction score
13
tartle said:
Whilst I am waiting for documents to appear after being selected from the 100 miles of shelves at the National Archives I idly bounce round Kew's weird and wonderful cataloguing system...aptly named Discovery. Today it was a toss up between the Fairey P. 24 installation dwg or Armstrong Siddeley's ASH GA and description. The GA is copied below and represents the Bomber engine version; see second attachment that describes the bomber and fighter version .....tbc
The turbine blades rotating about the same plane as the compressor blades -- stick the combusters between them and you have Frost's radial flow gas turbine.
 

charleybarley

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
2
Armstrong Siddeley P.151 proposal for Buccaneer

Roy Boot in his "From Spifire to Eurofighter" page 90, says this engine had "unusual characteristics in its variation of thrust with forward speed".

Can anyone explain this comment please?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
charleybarley said:
Armstrong Siddeley P.151 proposal for Buccaneer

Roy Boot in his "From Spifire to Eurofighter" page 90, says this engine had "unusual characteristics in its variation of thrust with forward speed".

Can anyone explain this comment please?
Perhaps it was prone to surging or stalling and Boot was being droll?
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
Indeed - a somewhat unhelpfully cryptic remark..

Purely speculative, but the RN test pilots carrying out Buccaneer deck landing trials would surely have noted objectionable
surging characteristics at that end of the envelope..

May well apply to transonic flight regimes also, though..
 

charleybarley

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
65
Reaction score
2
He was referring to the Armstrong Siddeley P151 proposal which presumably was a paper engine.
 

tartle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
557
Reaction score
3
As far as I can tell the P.151 project started as a version of the Sapphire Sa7 being developed for the thin wing Javelin... it then seems to moprh into a lightweight engine design... more digging needed!
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,134
Reaction score
104
Some pictures showing aircraft and engines projects designed by the British engineer Sir Alfred Hubert Roy Fedden MBE, FRAeS.


Design for a thirty-two seater tail-less airliner – in other words a flying wing – published in Fedden’s 1944 paper The Future of Civil Aviation.
The 1,350 hp Propeller Turbine, or turboprop as this type of engine became known, illustrated in the Fedden brochure.
Fedden’s 4.6 litre sleeve valve Flat Six mounted within an aircraft’s wing with long drive shaft to the pusher propeller at the rear.

Source: The Race for Hitler's X-Planes: Britain's 1945 Mission To Capture Secret Luftwaffe Technology, by John Christopher, published by The History Press Ltd (2012)
 

Attachments

GUNDAM123dx

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 31, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
13
The B10 Betty layout drawing above can be read with the diagram in an earlier post ...
The flight engine F2/1 is shaown.. it went in the tail of a Lancaster.
The F.2/2 engine is also at MOSI, which can, and was combined with the F.3 Augmentor. Pictures below.
...and a Flight cutaway of the whole rear fan engine. There is another view of this cutaway with the addition of a sectional view and the aerofoil cross-sections on the Flight website.
Do you have any idea about when the MetroVick F.3 first run?
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
995
Reaction score
29
Just a noticed little titbit from BSP.
Armstrong P.151 and Bristol BE.30 are designs to (forgot title) request for engines of 8-9,000lb around 30" Diameter of cheaper cost than Sapphire or Avon.
Seems DH's Gyron Junior was developed to this as well.
This must have been late '53 to early '54.

Designs for subsonic NA.39, light fighter F177 and a supersonic twin engined fighter. .....

Seems someone had twigged the need for such engines that sit in a sweet spot for such aircraft.
 
Top