An interesting video, thank you for making it. I now know the difference between centrifugal and axial flow engines and have learnt a little more about UK aero history - a vast and endlessly interesting subject.
Of all the people who worked on DH jet engine development how many emigrated to Canada to work on the AVRO Arrow and Iroquois engine and then subsequently the USA Apollo project. I'd submit that DH jet engine development was very successful. Unfortunately their work only served to benefit others.
Look forward to visiting. There is way more to the centrifugal versus axial design story and a lot of myths. Hope to have a chat with any in house expert.
I remember visiting the DH Museum many years ago before the big hangar was built. The Goblin intakes didn't have plastic covers over the intakes. My mate stuck her finger in to push the compressor round, and it moved very smoothly. The following blade nearly took the end of her finger off. She had a black nail for weeks after😂
The DH Museum is well worth a visit. It is run by Knowledgable enthusiasts and is a major milestone in the history of Aviation. This is without a mention of historic aeroplanes such as the Mosquito and DH Comets generations apart. Just Brilliant!
You miss the key factor in this decline, the Ministry of Supply, they determined a strategy for high trust engines in the mid 50s. They chose to only take forward 3 designs, where the RR Conway was the low bypass turbofan, Bristol Olympus was the two stage turbojet and the Gyron was the single stage turbojet. Whilst Gyron was the lower risk design it was never going to succeed if Rolls Royce and or Bristol designs were successful. As they were the Gyron could not compete as it never could achieve the efficiency of these more advanced designs.
Thank you, I had no idea this collection existed. It is a pity you did not make the distinction between the simplicity plus relative reliability of the centrifugal compressor and the fragile nature of the early German axial flow engines which had abysmal time between overhauls ; the Comet may have been the first jet airliner in service but the catastrophy was not through being letdown by its engines. It is true that large frontal area does not help aircraft speed and making fast moving air turn through right angles wastes energy so centrifugal compressors now only rule the turbo chargers in our cars. It is also true the Blackburn Buccaneer lost its underpowered DH Gyron Juniors in favour of RR Speys at a similar time to the name Blackburn being replaced by the collective Hawker Siddeley but there is the story of the Frank Halford designed Gypsy Major engine of the 1930s. They are still around today in significant numbers. The one I owned was just a little younger than me but started flying before me. It liked its electric starter but if hand swung preferred the throttle closed for instant response. It was always a pleasure to sit behind in flight. Though built by DH I had paperwork referring to it as the RR Gypsy Major since RR took over responsibility for these engines after DH support collapsed. The engine is most certainly a DH success. I have more experience with RR jet engines with no complaint but they were built by RR. In the realms of massively expensive projects there is no guaranteed link between successful design and successful business.
Over and over in history one company will do all the groundwork and find the failures that has a huge effect on a company's ability to continue and another company will pick up on what's been developed, improve past the failure point and then become dominant world leaders. Wow the name Boeing springs to mind.
I think there was too much jet engine developement right after the war, from the top op may hat you had Rolls Royce, Bristol, De Haviland and I believe Armstrong Withworth too. While De Haviland's engines proved succesful it was just a matter of time a few engine manufacturers would fall over.
Well, I'm not sure that you would be able to run a Rolls Royce on fuel oil if you really needed to. Or taxi back from a runway with a clear line of site to the hanger.
No not at all , they identified that the axial compressor was better but at that point we didn’t have the required metals to make it reliable as proved by the Germans axial engines having a life of mere hours, where the materials to build a reliable centrifugal compressor were, although not as efficient don’t forget the early RR engines based on the whittle engine were both centrifugal and very successful, it’s was only as the new high temperature material become available that manufactures started build axial flow engine, the book not much of a engineer is worth a read if your interest, a good insight from the RR side
I tend to forget that not only Whittle and RR (which forced Whittle out of business first) worked on engines. At the end RR put its weight into marketing and won the race (at least before US companies almost forced it to be sold too). Thanks for the reminder.
Personally, I give it up to the government practices of the day. "You aircraft companies have to merge or close". Well, everyone started looking for "partners" to make the best of aircraft designs from Company A with engines from Company B and the capacities of Company C. All of this, plus the government, again, stepping in and saying, "Company A will merge with Company F", type of thing. Naturally, Rolls Royce got the nod, as even De Havilland's Mosquito's used Merlin engines. It may not have been "fair", but what in life is?
It was Whittle who developed the Centrifugal Jet Engine patented ion 1930, first flew an aircraft in 1941) The British Government forced his company to give the technology away to the rest of English Big Business like Rolls Royce etc. Who had the first patents? - Whittle with the Government. de havilland, along with Rolls Royce, Rover etc got their start in Jet Engines on the back of Whittle's original development. Whittle shared his prize-money for this development with the German Hans von Ohain and later was given the recognition by the Americans that the British Government and Industry tried not to give him.
I don´t se the centrifugal engina a failure, it did was it set out to do. For it´s time it was a great leap forward, and proppeled (!) the aircraft industry into a new age.
Success in design but failure in being able to market and progress the design. RR focus was on Engines only. Thus 100% in R&D. Investment may not have been there in DH to the same levels, resulting in a weaker competition, less customers results in a higher unit cost. Bee interesting to see the costings of a DH engine to a RR equivalent.
I've checked the records, and the Sperrin was not supersonic. The Gyron was specifically designed for supersonic use, but the Sperrin itself was not. Apologies for the misleading comments in the video.
De Haviland was a giant in aviation, his daring, technical expertise and sheer genius will most likely be never be seen again.
The Gyron junior was replaced by RR Spey in the Buccaneer. Iirc the gyron jr was underpowered.
Great video btw. Very interesting 👍
Thanks.
Nothing is a disaster or waste of time. All experiences are learning curves.
An interesting video, thank you for making it. I now know the difference between centrifugal and axial flow engines and have learnt a little more about UK aero history - a vast and endlessly interesting subject.
Of all the people who worked on DH jet engine development how many emigrated to Canada to work on the AVRO Arrow and Iroquois engine and then subsequently the USA Apollo project. I'd submit that DH jet engine development was very successful. Unfortunately their work only served to benefit others.
Look forward to visiting. There is way more to the centrifugal versus axial design story and a lot of myths. Hope to have a chat with any in house expert.
I remember visiting the DH Museum many years ago before the big hangar was built. The Goblin intakes didn't have plastic covers over the intakes. My mate stuck her finger in to push the compressor round, and it moved very smoothly. The following blade nearly took the end of her finger off. She had a black nail for weeks after😂
The DH Museum is well worth a visit. It is run by Knowledgable enthusiasts and is a major milestone in the history of Aviation. This is without a mention of historic aeroplanes such as the Mosquito and DH Comets generations apart. Just Brilliant!
You miss the key factor in this decline, the Ministry of Supply, they determined a strategy for high trust engines in the mid 50s. They chose to only take forward 3 designs, where the RR Conway was the low bypass turbofan, Bristol Olympus was the two stage turbojet and the Gyron was the single stage turbojet. Whilst Gyron was the lower risk design it was never going to succeed if Rolls Royce and or Bristol designs were successful. As they were the Gyron could not compete as it never could achieve the efficiency of these more advanced designs.
I'm quite happy I found this channel and thank you for your presentation !
Thank you, I had no idea this collection existed. It is a pity you did not make the distinction between the simplicity plus relative reliability of the centrifugal compressor and the fragile nature of the early German axial flow engines which had abysmal time between overhauls ; the Comet may have been the first jet airliner in service but the catastrophy was not through being letdown by its engines. It is true that large frontal area does not help aircraft speed and making fast moving air turn through right angles wastes energy so centrifugal compressors now only rule the turbo chargers in our cars. It is also true the Blackburn Buccaneer lost its underpowered DH Gyron Juniors in favour of RR Speys at a similar time to the name Blackburn being replaced by the collective Hawker Siddeley but there is the story of the Frank Halford designed Gypsy Major engine of the 1930s. They are still around today in significant numbers. The one I owned was just a little younger than me but started flying before me. It liked its electric starter but if hand swung preferred the throttle closed for instant response. It was always a pleasure to sit behind in flight. Though built by DH I had paperwork referring to it as the RR Gypsy Major since RR took over responsibility for these engines after DH support collapsed. The engine is most certainly a DH success. I have more experience with RR jet engines with no complaint but they were built by RR. In the realms of massively expensive projects there is no guaranteed link between successful design and successful business.
Over and over in history one company will do all the groundwork and find the failures that has a huge effect on a company's ability to continue and another company will pick up on what's been developed, improve past the failure point and then become dominant world leaders. Wow the name Boeing springs to mind.
I think there was too much jet engine developement right after the war, from the top op may hat you had Rolls Royce, Bristol, De Haviland and I believe Armstrong Withworth too. While De Haviland's engines proved succesful it was just a matter of time a few engine manufacturers would fall over.
Well, I'm not sure that you would be able to run a Rolls Royce on fuel oil if you really needed to. Or taxi back from a runway with a clear line of site to the hanger.
It looks like frank Halford and Frank Whittle were the John Logie Baird or Betamax of jet engine designers.
No not at all , they identified that the axial compressor was better but at that point we didn’t have the required metals to make it reliable as proved by the Germans axial engines having a life of mere hours, where the materials to build a reliable centrifugal compressor were, although not as efficient don’t forget the early RR engines based on the whittle engine were both centrifugal and very successful, it’s was only as the new high temperature material become available that manufactures started build axial flow engine, the book not much of a engineer is worth a read if your interest, a good insight from the RR side
@@BerlietGBC It was a joke.
@@iangascoigne8231I thought it was funny👍😂
De Havilland did not have the political clout that Rolls and Bristol had.
I tend to forget that not only Whittle and RR (which forced Whittle out of business first) worked on engines. At the end RR put its weight into marketing and won the race (at least before US companies almost forced it to be sold too).
Thanks for the reminder.
Personally, I give it up to the government practices of the day. "You aircraft companies have to merge or close". Well, everyone started looking for "partners" to make the best of aircraft designs from Company A with engines from Company B and the capacities of Company C. All of this, plus the government, again, stepping in and saying, "Company A will merge with Company F", type of thing. Naturally, Rolls Royce got the nod, as even De Havilland's Mosquito's used Merlin engines. It may not have been "fair", but what in life is?
It was Whittle who developed the Centrifugal Jet Engine patented ion 1930, first flew an aircraft in 1941) The British Government forced his company to give the technology away to the rest of English Big Business like Rolls Royce etc. Who had the first patents? - Whittle with the Government. de havilland, along with Rolls Royce, Rover etc got their start in Jet Engines on the back of Whittle's original development. Whittle shared his prize-money for this development with the German Hans von Ohain and later was given the recognition by the Americans that the British Government and Industry tried not to give him.
those centrifugal engines show the bifurcating jet intake which was patented and proven to have no loss of thrust
Mig 15 used a centrifugal jet engine as did the Mig 17 it wasn't until Mig 19 that the Soviets went to Axial Flow engines
In Korea the MiG 15 and Grumman Panthers used derivatives of the exact same engine.
Don’t forget we sold the USSR the Nene engine
I don´t se the centrifugal engina a failure, it did was it set out to do. For it´s time it was a great leap forward, and proppeled (!) the aircraft industry into a new age.
Success in design but failure in being able to market and progress the design. RR focus was on Engines only. Thus 100% in R&D. Investment may not have been there in DH to the same levels, resulting in a weaker competition, less customers results in a higher unit cost. Bee interesting to see the costings of a DH engine to a RR equivalent.
Was the Sperrin really supersonic?
I've checked the records, and the Sperrin was not supersonic. The Gyron was specifically designed for supersonic use, but the Sperrin itself was not. Apologies for the misleading comments in the video.