Frank Whittle Bomber
- Thread starter Johnbr
- Start date
Information can be found in Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1939-1945.
See also
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1402
http://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=2460
See also
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1402
http://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=2460
tonton42
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 19 January 2009
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 1
Salut les amis,amsci99 said:
Just a little remark over the french flag on the rudder of military aircraft I'have saw on the site supra. The colors are always at the opposit of english, blue before and not red ! It's very important for credibility of the pretty drawings ...
A plus.
That would be powered by the LR1 turbofan
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1231&highlight=Whittle
There is a desciption in John Golley's 'Whittle: The True Story' and a bit in Bill Gunston's The development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines.
“The L.R.1 bomber project was first submitted to the Ministry of Aircraft Production late in 1944” and “In May, 1945 a project was prepared for a transatlantic civil transport powered by four L.R. 1 engines driving ducted fans. The machine was designed to cruise at 470 m.p.h. at 45,000ft. with a still air range of 5,280 miles and a payload of 20,000 lb. The estimated all-up weight was 156,000 lb.”
“The static thrust of the straight jet version of the engine was envisaged as 5,500lb static thrust at S.L.” The L.R.1 turbo fan would have given with a bypass ratio of 2.5, so this would give a thrust of ?? 10,000 lb? any ideas?
This is about the only details I can find for the L.R. 1 bomber but I was told by Ian Whittle, Whittles son that the prototype L.R.1 engine was almost finished being built.
Any additions or comments?
Bill Gunston says in his book 'The development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines' is that when Power Jets was nationalised it was told it must not build another engine and the loss of the LR.1 was of no consequence. When Japan was defeated there was no need for a long range bomber so the engine was cancelled - a few weeks alter the spec for the B35/46 long range bomber was issued.
I've just finished reading "Whittle: The true story" and it some pieces by Whittle in the back about the LR.1 and turbofans.
The Bypass ratio of the LR.1 was to be 2.5 - 3.0 and total thrust about 6000lb. The prototype was nearly completed in 1944. - this is what Whittle says in this small paper. Nothing about the straight-through version and comparable thrust (but that might be correct)
"The Metrovick F3 aft turbofan (my emphasis) of 1943 and two further forms of turbofan, modified by Whittle from his W2/700 turbojet ran as early as 1942. By 1944 Whittle's LR1 turbofan - having a by-pass ratio of 3 with ten axial stages and one centrifugal stage, giving a projected thrust of 27kN - was about to run when the project was cancelled."
The Uk's contribution to the development of Aeronautics, part 4 by J Ackroyd.
The 27kN thrust is about 6050lb thrust
As usual for the UK we shot ourselves in the foot, could have had a turbofan by 1945....
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1231&highlight=Whittle
There is a desciption in John Golley's 'Whittle: The True Story' and a bit in Bill Gunston's The development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines.
“The L.R.1 bomber project was first submitted to the Ministry of Aircraft Production late in 1944” and “In May, 1945 a project was prepared for a transatlantic civil transport powered by four L.R. 1 engines driving ducted fans. The machine was designed to cruise at 470 m.p.h. at 45,000ft. with a still air range of 5,280 miles and a payload of 20,000 lb. The estimated all-up weight was 156,000 lb.”
“The static thrust of the straight jet version of the engine was envisaged as 5,500lb static thrust at S.L.” The L.R.1 turbo fan would have given with a bypass ratio of 2.5, so this would give a thrust of ?? 10,000 lb? any ideas?
This is about the only details I can find for the L.R. 1 bomber but I was told by Ian Whittle, Whittles son that the prototype L.R.1 engine was almost finished being built.
Any additions or comments?
Bill Gunston says in his book 'The development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines' is that when Power Jets was nationalised it was told it must not build another engine and the loss of the LR.1 was of no consequence. When Japan was defeated there was no need for a long range bomber so the engine was cancelled - a few weeks alter the spec for the B35/46 long range bomber was issued.
I've just finished reading "Whittle: The true story" and it some pieces by Whittle in the back about the LR.1 and turbofans.
The Bypass ratio of the LR.1 was to be 2.5 - 3.0 and total thrust about 6000lb. The prototype was nearly completed in 1944. - this is what Whittle says in this small paper. Nothing about the straight-through version and comparable thrust (but that might be correct)
"The Metrovick F3 aft turbofan (my emphasis) of 1943 and two further forms of turbofan, modified by Whittle from his W2/700 turbojet ran as early as 1942. By 1944 Whittle's LR1 turbofan - having a by-pass ratio of 3 with ten axial stages and one centrifugal stage, giving a projected thrust of 27kN - was about to run when the project was cancelled."
The Uk's contribution to the development of Aeronautics, part 4 by J Ackroyd.
The 27kN thrust is about 6050lb thrust
As usual for the UK we shot ourselves in the foot, could have had a turbofan by 1945....
Johnbr
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 May 2007
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 283
Thanks for the info bummer that did not let him finish the LR.1.I Read a interview with him and he said if the UK had tread him like the USA did he and give him good funding.That he could have his jet engine in production by 1940.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,462
- Reaction score
- 1,529
We did, in the Metrovick F.3 aft fan - which actually worked. It was just more complicated to produce than centrifugal types and didn't offer enough performance gain (as the F.2). The F.3 with the larger diameter becomes harder to fit into nacelles or fuselages.
If you have a look through BSP there are actually quite a lot of period bomber projects powered by the Metrovick F.3 instead of centrifugal type engines.