Britain's Gift To The Soviets | When Rolls Royce Gave The Jet Engine To Russia, And They Copied It

In 1951, a Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 was shot down over Korea's west coast and plummeted into the Yellow Sea.
The jet was pulled from the shallow water by US and South Korean forces and transported by a British frigate for study.
At a US Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio, the plane is poured over. One of the first discoveries of this incredible aircraft comes when the engine is inspected. Expecting to find a hybrid of Russian and
German jet technology, the teams studying the captured prize receive a shock. The plane
is powered by what appears to be a Rolls-Royce Neen II, designed in England.
The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 (Russian: Микоян-Гуревич МиГ-15; USAF/DoD designation: Type 14; NATO reporting name: Fagot) is a jet fighter aircraft developed by Mikoyan-Gurevich for the Soviet Union. The MiG-15 was one of the first successful jet fighters to incorporate swept wings to achieve high transonic speeds. In aerial combat during the Korean War, it outclassed straight-winged jet day fighters, which were largely relegated to ground-attack roles. In response to the MiG-15's appearance and in order to counter it, the United States Air Force rushed the North American F-86 Sabre to Korea.
When refined into the more advanced MiG-17, the basic design would again surprise the West when it proved effective against supersonic fighters such as the Republic F-105 Thunderchief and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in the Vietnam War of the 1960s.
The MiG-15 is believed to be one of the most produced jet aircraft, with more than 13,000 manufactured. The MiG-15 remains in service with the Korean People's Army Air Force as an advanced trainer.
The first turbojet fighter developed by Mikoyan-Gurevich OKB was the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9, which appeared in the years immediately after World War II. It used a pair of reverse-engineered German BMW 003 engines. The MiG-9 was a troublesome design that suffered from weak, unreliable engines and control problems. Categorized as a first-generation jet fighter, it was designed with the straight-style wings common to piston-engined fighters.
In 1946 Soviet engine technology was far behind the West's. The Germans had been unable to develop airworthy turbojets with thrust over 1,130 kilograms-force (11,100 N; 2,500 lbf) capable of running for more than a few hours at the time of the surrender in May 1945, which limited the performance of immediate Soviet postwar jet aircraft designs. The Soviet aviation minister Mikhail Khrunichev and aircraft designer A. S. Yakovlev suggested to Premier Joseph Stalin that the USSR buy the reliable, fully developed Rolls-Royce Nene (having been alerted to the fact that the U.K. Labour government wanted to improve post-war UK-Russia foreign relations) for the purpose of copying them in a minimum of time. Stalin is said to have replied, "What fool will sell us his secrets?"
MiG-15 General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.102 m (33 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 10.085 m (33 ft 1 in)
Height: 3.7 m (12 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 20.6 m2 (222 sq ft)
Airfoil: root: TsAGI S-10; tip: TsAGI SR-3
Empty weight: 3,681 kg (8,115 lb)
Gross weight: 5,044 kg (11,120 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6,106 kg (13,461 lb) with 2x600 L (160 US gal; 130 imp gal) drop-tanks
Fuel capacity: 1,420 L (380 US gal; 310 imp gal) internal
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov VK-1 centrifugal-flow turbojet, 26.5 kN (5,950 lbf) thrust
Performance
Maximum speed: 1,076 km/h (669 mph, 581 kn) at sea level
1,107 km/h (688 mph; 598 kn) / M0.9 at 3,000 m (9,800 ft)
Maximum speed: Mach 0.87 at sea level
Cruise speed: 850 km/h (530 mph, 460 kn) Mach 0.69
Ferry range: 2,520 km (1,570 mi, 1,360 nmi) at 12,000 m (39,000 ft) with 2x600 L (160 US gal; 130 imp gal) drop-tanks
Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,900 ft)
Rate of climb: 51.2 m/s (10,080 ft/min)
Wing loading: 296.4 kg/m2 (60.7 lb/sq ft)
Thrust/weight: 0.54
Armament
Guns:
2 × 23 mm Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23 autocannon in the lower left fuselage (80 rounds per gun, 160 rounds total)
1 × 37 mm Nudelman N-37 autocannon in the lower right fuselage (40 rounds total)
Hardpoints: 2 , with provisions to carry combinations of:
Bombs: 100 kg (220 lb) bombs
Other: drop tanks or unguided rockets
Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories and missions ➤ / @dronescapes
To support/join the channel ➤ / @dronescapes
IG ➤ / dronescapesvideos
FB ➤ / dronescapesvideos
X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.vi...
THREADS ➤ www.threads.ne...
#aircraft #airplane #jetengine

[@Dronescapes]

Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories and missions ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes To support/join the channel ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos ➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj ➤ THREADS: www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos

[@juliane__]

30:00 Britain had several national atomic spies in their own ranks, who spied earlier than Fuchs, why downplaying this part and blaming a foreign person? Feels blindsided and arrogant to me, just to please the public.

[@Dave56-qu8yi]

Apopogies Accepted & Your Comments Noted

[@allwright5632]

Thanks for video! imho, because of speaking after WW2 Brittanie, it's a good time to mention book by talented ex GRU officer, Captain Evgeniy Ivanov. It been published at english by name "Naked Spy" and being banned in UK. Couse it mentions the famous Profumo Affair at starting of 1963. I hope, you read it! Had read this at enlarged ebook edition from 2012-13yy, in native russian . There had mentioned western sloppiness with secret documents, useful (for com bloc intel ) stupidity and naivety of western officials& militaries, etc.. Also, there is picante rumor from '50s, about Elizabeth caught Phillip messing with Margaret, assuming she seduced horny husband -sailor to revenge elder sister-queen)) OK, all characters in the book for now already being late and may RIP😪 . Elizabeth was very smart and decided to take care of her family happiness- punished hard sister and and began to tight control still loved husband..

[@allwright5632]

Engines: with help some agents of influence were bought Neens and more advanced Derwents. also, soviet and after that chinese delegations to western defense industries walked with soft and sticky insoles to catch metal sawdust for analyzing alloys and try somehow replicate them. Klimov was plant chief director. Korea: To fight for ex red army korean company commander, captain Kim Il Sung, Stalin sent to China , AF division with many WW2 veterans in it, which commanded by soviet super ace & triple star hero, Kozhedub. From this came know soviet joke rhyme about pilot Li Si Tsin (Lisitsin, translates as Foxy or Foxman😁)

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not an alliance between the Germans and the Soviets, but an agreement on non-aggression... An alliance is a completely different matter... don't spread lies!

[@ianedmonds9191]

The picture of the B-29 and B-36 side by side had my jaw hitting the floor. The difference in scale and ambition realised in such a short time is truly amazing.

[@ianedmonds9191]

That was an excellent video. My Grandad was WW2 pilot though he got his wings just as the war in Europe was ending so he was never commissioned. He talked fondly about learning to fly in Canada and crossing the Atlantic on the Queen Mary to go to flight school. He was manager of a Jute mill which was a reserved occupation however when the call went out for pilots and having previously flown gliders he volunteered. He was a great man and I knew him until passed age 94. He gave me my love of planes taking me to air shows and talking all about his experiences. For that I'm truly grateful. Luv and Peace.

[@fritz3388]

The B-29 was build to wage war against civilians, so typical American, go for the weak.

[@richardstaples8621]

It is ironic that an earlier foreign air force used a Rolls-Royce engine as well. The first German Ju87 (Stuka) flew in the mid 1930s with a Rolls-Royce Kestrel V engine.

[@Niffe2024]

Why not? Sovjets had even british and us citizens as ministers after revolution. It was so called "color revolution" as usual.

[@matiasrodriguez6981]

@@Niffe2024 Nice 1!

[@possumGFX]

So did the BF109 prototype.

[@phouliscostantinou1767]

Because the Northern Royals were Germans…..

[@d74rjm]

I can't believe my eyes!!! "Soviet delegation tours the R-R plant and is shown latest engine developments" Amazingly ...stupid!

[@myparceltape1169]

In 1913 the Kaiser's navy were still on good terms with the huge Royal Navy and paid visits. A year later three cousins were at war. One was killed, one left his country, only one stayed on his throne.

[@phouliscostantinou1767]

😂😂😂😂😂Did they really need to copy????

[@myparceltape1169]

@@phouliscostantinou1767 No, they wanted proof that they had not been given substandard or derated engines. And that is a question not worth asking.

[@poodleinadoodle3270]

He believed in: "The brotherhood of men" oh what heresy! Men cannot be brothers anymore, sad.

[@Thenogomogo-zo3un]

Sure, all men are born equal

[@poodleinadoodle3270]

@@Thenogomogo-zo3un haha! Sarcasm?

[@jbauerlu2]

land lease and the benefit of location made the usa the ultimate wiinner of ww 1 and ww 2

[@lookoutforchris]

The he ultimate winner was not the US. It was the Jews.

[@kkteutsch6416]

Brits gave as the russians as the americans the same gift, both don't have at this time a developed jet engine yet...

[@MKSense1]

Some people from some nations are playing god.

[@micstonemic696stone]

Rolls-Royce gave the turbojet in good faith however learning the whole story was interesting We were not the only country believing the Russians were friendly's As to tupolev was able to copy the B29 into its own Squadron markings on the vertical stabilizer to aid identification And how about the Aim 9 Type Sidewinder IR They are made to fly up the exhaust pipe of the turbojet but one did not go off I imagine the pilot immediately shut down his engine as it would Cook Off and explode because of the heat if we shut off the fuel the starter would just blow cold air out of the jet pipe What's a prize to take home though and a very lucky pilot Don't play the blame game It is just all our history I am an Englishman who lives in Britain and I am proud I wish every human being on this planet right now a good life. Mikey d

[@mudra5114]

Why would Communists be friendly to Britain?

[@mardamek3]

What I’ve heard from the Soviet side is that they (the Soviets) were well aware that the British were using a special type of alloy, and that part of the reason they had agreed to selling the design was that the British were confident that they (the Soviets) would ultimately fail due to the lack of technology in metallurgy. And for this reason the Soviet delegation made sure to collect samples from the Rolls Royce factory by way of wearing shoes with thick and soft rubber soles and having the metal shavings embedded in the shoe soles. Another story is that one of the members of the Soviet delegation intentionally spilled something on the floor, then quickly took off his handkerchief as if to wipe it off, but really just collected the metal shavings in a sweeping motion and quickly putting the dirty handkerchief back in his pocket before others would interfere.

[@Dronescapes]

That is a known story, but it is hard to tell if it real, or fantasy. Could be...

[@markholmphotography]

BTW - technically the Korean War isn’t over - no peace treaty was signed, only a ceasefire. So even though there isn’t any fighting currently - there is no real peace.

[@mikman7219]

You you want to say that any country which is not at war with another country has a peace treaty with that country?

[@nomercynodragonforyou9688]

@@mikman7219 reading comprehension failure

[@mechadonia]

@@mikman7219ur special aren’t u

[@Alpacaluffy]

Thats capitalism for ya. Your country is severely crippled after the war, and your ally sends you a bill.

[@johnbirch7639]

Rolls Royce did not give Russians the engine, it was a gift from Atlee, the PM at the time.

[@lastmanstanding9389]

@jameswoollard84 1 month ago Rolls Royce also Gave The Jet Engine To the US.

[@Dronescapes]

Back then it was still Whittle’s engine. They also shipped the brilliant British inventor together with the engine. That was 1941, and in 1942 it powered the first turbojet aircraft to fly on U.S. soil, the Bell XP-59

[@mangray66]

The early US jet airliners were said to be copied from British airliners,which led to the downfall of the British civilian airline industry😮

[@Dronescapes]

The Comet had the well know catastrophic issues (later fixed), but they were still the first turbojet powered airlines, and you have to recognize that Britain gave the U.S. a pretty decent headstart when it comes to turbojets. Not only Whittle and his engine were shipped in great secrecy to the United States in 1941, but the British engine became the first one to fly on U.S. soil, in the Bell XP-59 in 1942. It was also the engine that powered the first U.S. jet powered fighter, Kelly Johnson/Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star. That engine became both General Electric and Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet, kickstarting an entire industry, which is why G.E. still worships Whittle to this day, and even felt compelled to make a film in the 50s. Centrifugal turbojet aside, do not forget that Metrovick/Griffith, etc. had been working on axial turbojets as well, and their knowledge was shared as well, just like Whittle's. Without turbojet propulsion you do not have jet airliners either... You can easily see why Britain would share all their knowledge with their precious allies, it was only fair after what the U.S. did for Britain, but the same, in a way, can be said for the Soviet Union, as they had sacrificed a lot as well, and perhaps, in return, they also got the same engine as a gift, just like the U.S. had received in 1941. You can argue that the MiG-15 was superior to the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star because of Swept Wings (copied from the Germans), but it is ironic that these opposing aircraft had the same engine donated by Britain.

[@draganjagodic4056]

An act of madness, stupidity or high treason?

[@dogbadger]

Well, if the Labour party was involved then it's quite possibly a combination of all three.

[@jeromewagschal9485]

​@@dogbadger😄😄😄

[@stevengriffin7873]

@@dogbadger All three.

[@cmdredstrakerofshado1159]

All of the above

[@Dronescapes]

Just for the record, the U.S. had the same engine, including Frank Whittle, the inventor, since 1941. Both were sent, in great secrecy to the U.S. back then. Whittle's turbojet powered the first U.S. jet aircraft (Bell XP-59), but also Kelly Johnson/Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star, which proved inferior to the MiG, despited having the same British derived turbojet. Lack of swept wings for the F-80 is a good explanation of the basic inferiority of the U.S. aircraft. The U.S., in Korea, rushed an axial turbojet powered aircraft, the F-86 Sabre. Britain also shared their work on axial turbojets (Metrovick)... Here is a G.E. documentary, made in the 50s, about the events: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mYDddmh9js2Upbc

[@douglasjackson6955]

Like so many the Union flag is being flown Upside Down, an international recognised sign of Distress !

[@Mossyz.]

We are a country who made the modern world .

[@MWcrazyhorse]

Not surprising since Britain and the Soviets were allies. Where did they get the atomic bomb from? It is a very cynical Empire that cares exclusively about itsself.

[@tomriley5790]

Yeah this was an utterly stupid decision of Atlee's all in all he was far far too trusting.

[@colinofay7237]

Does any body know, how much gold did Britain get from russia for the jet technology? Ive been trying hard to find the answer, but cannot. Feeling a bit deflated, should be able to easily find this information but I cannot

[@kmaheshk]

These engines were given as a quid pro quo. Stalin threatened to release Subhash Chandra Bose in India and get rid of British puppy in India (you know who). This would have derailed the geopolitical equations of British. Hence Britain gave these engines and tech absolutely free.

[@r-vinth7923]

Source?

[@vintageretrogadgets1094]

Cool!

[@robertkrump2015]

Definitely Hypocrisy if supply Ukraine with Weapons were infuriating Russia

[@arevikantonyan6305]

The copy from the concord , concordsky tu144 was not a good idee 😅😅😅

[@Thenogomogo-zo3un]

Didn't they sell the Soviets 'dud' plans? like underhand? They were all of wrong measurements and other things, details of parts not needed. missing components in certain areas lots of purposeful misdirection. I know they did something like that with the Space Shuttle when the Soviets built the Boran.

[@billmago7991]

Churchills secretary when asked how did the allies win the war, replied, "our german scientists were better than their german scientists."😂😂😂😂

[@Dronescapes]

Well, Frank Whittle, the inventor of the turbojet, was as British as it gets, and he was left alone as it gets, unsupported, unfunded, ridiculed, you name it! It was only when he was spotted by the Americans that he finally saw some recognition. His engine became the first U.S. turbojet, powering the first jet aircraft to fly on U.S. soil, but also the first jet powered U.S. jet fighter (F-80 Shooting Star). He was shipped in great secrecy to the United States, and his engine became the blueprint for General Electric's first engine, but also Pratt & Whitney's. As we know, his engine, taken over by Rolls Royce, became the MiG15 engine as well (copied of course). It is a shame that Whittle was ignored for so many years (at least 6 to be on the safe side), otherwise Britain would have had a proper turbojet (and not a disastrous engine like the Germans had) before the beginning of the war. In 1945 his engine powering an aerodynamically outdated Gloster Meteor, matched the Me 262's speed, and contrary to the German engine, his actually worked properly, and was truly reliable, needing only overhauls, whereas the German engine had to be literally scrapped after a handful of hours. (10 to 25 hours at best). It was basically useless, other than pathetic propaganda. Imagine if they had Whittle's engine in 1939! On the other hand, Germans were extremely advanced in aerodynamics, having supersonic wind tunnels that the Brits could only dream of.

[@pgr3290]

​@@Dronescapes The supersonic wind tunnels were von Braun's for his ballistic missile program. A program that very much helped the allies win the war. It cost Germany at least as much as the atomic bomb cost the United States, and at the end of it they had a very expensive, very inaccurate way to throw a few tonnes of explosives into English turnip fields. Whereas the USA possessed the single most powerful weapon ever seen in all history. Germany wasted enormous sums of money and resources on ineffective follies. Thank goodness.

[@mukundarammondal9285]

During the period of 2nd World War, Politicians of Britain was not so much crude or cruel as of today. Ethics, morality or conscience of Political Leaders or of common citizens was not so much degraded like drainwater. Rather cordial and heartfelt relationship among people of one country with another. Only during and after WW ll, we see only US Govt. along with their Military Industrial Complex exterminating and decimating anything and everything including all types of civil infrastructures ; butchering hundreds of, thousands of innocent civilians in a planned strategical manner. Some psychopath and maniac people enjoy this horrible incidents with love, joy and unstinted support ! For them, the whole World today is being turned into moribund stinking hell ; not livable for gentlemen and people with conscience and humanity !

[@nidalshehahadeh7485]

As the Russians touring the British factories they were wearing soft sole on the shoes picking up bits and pieces of metals for analysis, the Russians did the same thing as they visited Boeing aircraft manufacturing facilities except the Americans made them take off their shoes after their visit.

[@Dronescapes]

I often wonder if that is just legend or reality, although the Soviets were quite sleek. they had no problem cloning the Boeing B-29

[@nidalshehahadeh7485]

@@Dronescapes The person who told me the story about the Russians at Boeing was a long time Boeing employee and he was in his late age, he volunteered the information as we were casually talking about different things nothing in particular. Here is another small story that you may or may not know, the first airplane built by Boeing was a reversed engineered Douglas designed that Boeing purchased. Is it true is it not I don't know but that's what I was told . I used to live in Renton Washington just above the Renton airport where they build the 737s, Boeing in Seattle is a common topic among the water coolers and dinner tables considering the economic impact on Seattle. and here's another rumor that I just remembered, there was some talk years back that Boeing is about to shut down the factory in Renton Washington where they build the 737s and DreamWork was thinking of purchasing the Boeing facilities at the Renton Airport and converting the facilities into a movie studio.

[@Dronescapes]

One thing is certain, that engine was shipped in great secrecy to G.E. in the United States in 1941. Sir Frank Whittle was sent there along with his invention, because it was called the Rolls Royce Nene (the one purchased, and copied without permission by the Soviets). the British engine equipped the first U.S. turbojet powered aircraft to fly on U.S. soil in 1942 (Bell XP-59), and a few others after that, including the first operational jet fighter designed by the legendary Kelly Johnson, the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star. General Electric still celebrated Whittle to this day: www.geaerospace.com/news/articles/100-year-anniversary/us-enters-jet-age-mr-whitelys-make-whittle-secret-stay-lynn It is nice of G.E. not to forget who kickstarted the jet revolution. Ironically the F-80 had to face the MiG-15 in Korea, and proved to be inferior because of the lack of swept wings. They both had the same Whittle derived engine, one gifted to the United States, and one "purchased" and copied by the Soviets many years later. Pratt & Whitney's first turbojet was also Whittle's licensed turbojet, given a boost to what became one of the leaders of turbojets propulsion. That brilliant Brit sure did a lot more for aviation than people commonly remember. Last but not least, it also powered the first jet airliner in history, the De Havilland Comet.

[@nidalshehahadeh7485]

So the socialist government of England sold one engine to the Russians and gifted one engine to the Americans, if we dig deep in history we find out that the same Bankers who made Hitler was the same Bankers who finance communism, I wonder if the delivery of the jet engines and the nuclear bomb information was intentionally delivered to both sides to keep them fighting and the bankers will make money from the war machine, you might want to look into the information provided by George Racey Jordan and his book "From Major's Jordan's Diaries". major Jordan was the person responsible for the shipment of goods to the Russians during the lend lease program, based on his testimony he delivered Uranium to the during World War II, in other words the history we know is a fabrication.

[@pickeljarsforhillary102]

Thanks tea sippers.

[@johnhudghton3535]

You also can thank us for the jet engine, septic, and a whole host of other inventions that came your way.

[@AbdoZaInsert]

@@johnhudghton3535 We appreciate your work Tea Sipper.

[@stevensibbet5869]

The Labour Party in action

[@Dave56-qu8yi]

HOW Come AT The END THERE IS [NO] BRITISH PLANES ?

[@ndr8469]

We don't want to threaten anyone, Labour party policy, Unilateralism If we declare peace so will everyone else. peace in our time, I have the signature of their leader. Next week war starts. 😂 Labour party shocked.

[@Dave56-qu8yi]

AT The END [IF you BOTHERED To LOOK ]They GO THROUGH The HISTORY Of AVIATION From The Wright Brothers & Pioneers /visionaries Of ALL AIRCRAFT Muppet. @@alganhar1

[@Phil-D83]

Very bad idea given that they were never your friends, even if temporary allies during ww2

[@itnhieiyt]

The real David Attenborough would know the plural of "Aircraft"

[@kevfit4333]

And Marx lived in London. As did Lenin for a while. Communism has a lot of roots in London (Fabian socialists).

[@rossmansell5877]

The Post war Labour govt gave 6 of the RR engines to Stalin........

[@Dronescapes]

And a blend of Conservative/Labour government ignored Sir Frank Whittle for too many years, denying Britain that very same turbojet for at least 6 years. It would given Britain a massive advantage before WW2 even started. I wonder who A.A. Griffith stood for, but given that at the time Whittle was a lefty, I suspect he rooted for the opposite side. He was the person most responsible for one of Britain's biggest errors in history.

[@Thenogomogo-zo3un]

I think it was more like 25, 'for evaluation' There was a rumour that RR asked for them back and they got a few crates of old broken engine parts and junk metal.

[@Comm0ut]

An unfortunate outcome of WWII was only half civilizations enemies lost the war, while aiding the Communist half was deemed necessary to save Europe in the short term. The Left naturally greeted Russia legs akimbo and there was no mechanism to take the fight to the Leftist enemy in the relentlessly harsh manner used to resist Hitler. The Western Left are to blame for Russian survival (Curtis LeMay had the wise idea of a nuclear decapitation strike) including the current tyranny.

[@steenlassen5718]

The Rolls Royce Neen was already outdated, and everybody knew. (German-) Axial jet engines were in performance better than radial jet engines like the Neen. So the russians got old technology, with no future development opportunities.

[@Dronescapes]

RR Nene…But here is the interesting bit: Britain had been working on axial turbojets since the late 1920s. As a matter of facts Griffith, one of the pioneers of turbojets, wrote a seminal paper on axial turbines in 1926, when Von Ohain did not have the slightest thought about turbojets. It also happens that Griffith was appointed, in 1929, as the sole judge of the project of a young brilliant engineer who purposely ditched an axial solution because he realized (that is how smart he was) it would take a long time to make it work properly. Of course Griffith, most likely feeling challenged, boycotted the project, and effectively delayed it for at least 6 years. His name was Frank Whittle, and he fully understood that an axial turbojet would eventually dominate (25 years later). His goal and mission was to create the perfect transitional turbojet, and effectively invent and create the first turbojet. He managed to do that in April 1937, despite Griffith, and with limited private funding received only in mid 1935, and after not being able to renew his patent for lack of money. His work, not protected by secrecy, was diligently copied by Germany and distributed across their universities, landing in the desk of Hans Von Ohain as well (what a surprise) People often confuse the useless and flawed German turbojet with their desperate effort to deploy an engine that was absolutely not ready to be operational. The best and obvious proof is in what happened after the war: the German turbojets were completely ignored, or discarded, with the exceptexception of the French government. They assembled a platoon of Nazi engineers that worked on those disastrous engines, and put them to work. It took them 8 long years, and radical,modifications to make them work, but they also required external work to do so. By then the British turbojets worked quite well, both axial and centrifugal. You have to realize that Britain was so concentrated on more strategic things, that they even issued a moratorium on turbojet R&D in the 30s. This said, if Griffith did not stop Whittle for so many years, Britain would have had the perfect turbojet for that era before the beginning of the war. By the way, Von Ohain/Heinkel’s first jet powered aircraft had a mixed solution, which included Whittle’s invention, and it is also interesting to note that during the war they both tried to revert back to a centrifugal,turbojet, given the poor results that all those German companies working on the axial turbojet, including Heinkel, produced. That is why, despite the German engine not even being close to be operationally viable, was deployed out of desperation in late 1944. If Britain acted as stupidly (or desperately) as Germany did, they could have operationally deployed their Metrovick F.2, or the very reliable Whittle’s engine, but at that stage of the war there was no reason on earth to do so, as they were about to win the war, and the scope of a limited production jet aircraft would have been operationally pointless. If you listen to the new Von Ohain’s interviews on the channel, you can hear directly from him how clueless he was about the benefits of a turbojet, and at the same time you can read in Whittle’s thesis as a student (many years before) how sharp his vision of the future was. The difference in brilliance between the two engineers is quite evident.

[@steenlassen5718]

@@Dronescapes Metalurgy was not up the task in axial turbojets. It was easier to make it work in radial/centrifugal turbojets, so that is what Whittle did…

[@Dronescapes]

That is the usual “Wikipedia” style explanation. The Germans engines had far more problems beside the prototype stage, which is why it took the French eight endless years + government funding + 120 Nazi engineers + help from a U.S. company + radical modifications, to make them finally work properly, and you can add to that all the years 4/5 other German companies had been working on it (Junkers+Heinkel+BMW), and pouring enormous resources into it. Britain developed both axial and centrifugal turbojets with smaller resources, moratoriums, and when it comes to Whittle, even all the boycott, total lack of support for many years, utter frustration that made his sleepless, and much more. He did not have the few £ (4 I believe) necessary to renew his patent, that’s how bad it was for him before receiving limited support from private investors and achieve his goal in record time while Von Ohain was pampered by Heinkel, and had all the money he ever needed. You can hear many of this from both the Whittle and Von Ohain interviews. Aside from Whittle, which is a story in itself, Britain made intelligent strategic choices despite having axial turbojets before the end of the war. When compared to Whittle’s the were indeed more powerful, but still needed more time to be developed into proper ones. I am sure you are aware that his engine powered the first U.S. turbojet powered flight in 1942, after he had been sent there in great secrecy with his engine, and that it powered the first U.S. operational jet fighter, the F-80, which proved to be inferior to the MiG 15 in Korea, powered by the same engine, mostly because of swept wings. That prompted the U.S. to deploy the axial turbojet, which was definitively not derived from the German one. Metrovick shared their knowledge just as much as Whittle did… If you want to get a tiny bit more granular, even the Czech Air Force tried to make some use of the German turbojet, and the Me 262, but it was another waste of time, and they ended up using the British engine clone. One thing is certain, if Whittle had been supported even a fraction of Von Ohain, Britain would have had a many years advantage, and a reliable turbojet, compared to the Germans, that would have kept that advantage for at least 15 years. After all in 1945 a Meteor powered by Whittle’s turbojet was matching the performance of a Me 262, despite having gone through the infinite hurdles he had to endure. Whittle, and Griffith were both aware of the future of axial compressors in the last 1920s, years ahead of Von Ohain, and as I mentioned, Whittle had a sharp understanding of the future of aviation and a keep strategic vision, while Von Ohain was, at least initially, clueless. Attributing the turbojet to Germany is wide overstatement, when in reality it was dictated by desperation and their usual propaganda. Their engine, at the end of the war, was an operational joke (also because of materials). If you think about it, even in today’s Formula1, the pinnacle of automotive engineering, Germans teams in order to win have to be virtual British teams. They still have some brilliant minds when it comes to engineering, as they did 100 years ago. Von Ohain at the end of the day, was also a bit of a smart cheater, and it took him years to finally admit he had access to Whittle’s work, and probably Griffith’s axial papers from 1926.

[@mawriki]

likewise, you can give the best running shoes to any of your "enemies" -- if they cannot run, it's no use

[@woodennecktie]

we can not compair todays problems with decisions made years before and in a complete different situation . so to say it was labour or tory "who did it" is complete nonsence

[@JohnMcAulay-ei1gk]

One of the many reasons I could never vote for the treasonous Labour party.

[@Dronescapes]

Bad timing for that consideration given what just happened. There a few things that could have encouraged Britain giving the Nene engine to the Soviets: - Britain had been working on the future of turbojets, the axial engine, so the centrifugal one was perhaps considered “old”. They could not imagine how well it would have worked in the MiG15. After all Britain gifted the same engine to the U.S. in 1941, ages earlier. The U.S. jet fighter that initially faced the MiG was in fact powered by the same British derived turbojet,but the F-80 proved to be aerodynamically inferior to the Soviet designed aircraft. Ironically the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star was designed by an aviation genius: the legendary Kelly Johnson. Swept wings were the key difference. The U.S. had also a several years advantage in evolving that engine, having received it from Britain many, many years earlier. That engine was in fact the first turbojet to powered an aircraft on U.S. soil in 1942, but also General Electric and Pratt & Withney’s first turbojet. - The Soviets were instrumental in defeating Hitler and Nazi Germany, so perhaps a sense of gratitude was in order. You might want to check how many people Russia lost during WW2 vs. Britain and the United States. The numbers are staggering. - The deal was that they would not copy those few engines they were granted. They did not stick to the deal.

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

The engine was not given but sold. Additionally the engine was out of date by this time. The Mig’s speed was due to lightness of construction

[@Dronescapes]

And the crucial swept wings

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

@@Dronescapes as they found out with the Meteor

[@robertkrump2015]

Bureaucrats

[@nomercynodragonforyou9688]

This video is too long. As it shouldn't include the second part at all, whatsoever. But other than that, it's very informative, despite the sluggishness of that old professor talking.

[@NothMeeh]

Another traitor to freedom.

[@asithalk]

Russians always copied from west but have more advanced ones..😂😂😂

[@foenikxsfirebird3067]

THAT had been very stupid , to make THAT gift .

[@TheAneewAony]

The simple, low tech, easy to build RR Nene was ideal for the Russians. Axial-flow jet engines were simply too hard to maintain and build for the Russians at that time.

[@johnroddy8756]

It's was the ordinary private on ground level that stopped and broke the back of the Nazi war machine .Not Rolls rice engine .for the few that flew ,and imagine maintenance required.All to often the simple mass produced machine wins the day.

[@Dronescapes]

This is referring to post WW2…I suspect you are mixing wars and timelines. The RR powered MiG fought in Korea

[@johnroddy8756]

@@Dronescapes O for sure.Did not know that,one learns some thing new every day.Thanks for Reply.

[@Dronescapes]

Did you watch the video before commenting? Knowing the subject before commenting should be the minimum requirement…

[@josephkelly5218]

The English have always been generous to others. U like the USA

[@michaelpielorz9283]

It was a clever move from the british to give the russians those outdated radial engines and made the russians think they got the latest technology. it took them years to develop the axial engines and even to reach german 1945 standart s(;-).

[@Dronescapes]

A couple of considerations: The MiG-15 initially faces the F-80 Shooting Star (ironically also powered by a variant of the same engine), but it proved to be inferior. The MiG was, like it or not, a feared aircraft at the time. Nazi Germany never produced an operationally decent axial turbojet. The Jumo, despite years of development, was still disastrous, pathetically short lived, fragile, hard to operate, and prone to deadly flame-outs. The Soviets, just like the Americans and the British, ignored the German turbojet after the war (all variants from all manufacturers). The only serious attempt at making use of those flawed and over engineered German engines was at the hands of the French. After the war they assembled 120 Nazi engineers and put them to work. It took them years, they had to radically modify them, and the sought assistance from an American partner in order to make a proper engine. You seem to ignore the fact that Britain had been working on axial turbojets for a very long time (Griffith’s seminal paper on axial compressors dates back to 1926), but unlike Nazi Germany, they were not stupid enough to deploy an immature technology that would have been useless at the time. Whittle’s centrifugal turbojet, had he not been delays by over 6 years and practically broke, would have been the perfect solution, and could have been ready well before the beginning of WW2. He was acutely aware that the axial turbojet would eventually take over (in decades), but his aim was to give his country a strategic advantage, a turbojet that was easy to develop, and immensely more reliable than the axial turbojets of the time (the attempts at making a decent one). By 1945 Whittle’s engine, despite endless years of being ignored, and initially developed with meager private funding, matched the speed of the Me262. Imagine what it could have done if deployed when Von Ohain used a mixed axial/centrifugal engine in his Heinkel demonstrator (He 178). Ignoring Whittle was an obvious fatal mistake on behalf of the Brits (Griffith was the sole culprit for striking down his project in 1929). On the other side the Germans, despite BMW, Junkers and Heinkel working on a turbojet for years, and years (the German might), could not produce an operationally viable turbojet by the end of 1944, and out of desperation they deployed a great airframe (Me 262),:with a pathetic engine. It is easy to understand why it was mostly ignored after WW2 by all key players. The Brits had already an important knowledge at their disposal,many happily shared it with the U.S., just like they did with Whittle’s engine as early as 1941, which powered the first U.S. jet aircraft to fly on U.S. soil in 1942, the Bell XP-59. Short range was also another issue during WW2, relegating the turbojet to little more than a gimmick, and a waste of resources, but obviously Germany had to show strength at a time were the war was lost.

[@gregsutton2400]

Your description of the aircraft that Russia received is nonsense

[@Dronescapes]

You mean the turbojet?

[@gregsutton2400]

@@Dronescapes no under lend lease.

[@mawriki]

I love the language of Propaganda: what is the difference between a "virtual stalemate" and a "real stalemate"? Why the bombing missions broke WWII records, but were to weak to win the war, although the whole land was destroyes?

[@mochacosgranday4205]

no one to say that Jet technology was stolen from Germany 😂

[@Dronescapes]

Because it was not. Not only the turbojet is a British invention (Whittle, April 1937j, but Britain had been working on both axial and centrifugal turbojets since the late 1920s. The German turbojet was universally ignored with the exception of the French. After the war they assembled 120 Nazi engineers (ex of course), but it took them 8 years and radical modifications to make them work properly. They also required help from a U.S. company… Do not mistake late 1944 desperate German propaganda with proper engineering. You might want to start with Griffith in 1926 and his seminal paper on axial compressors. He was also,the same person that delayed Whittle by over 6 years (conflict of interests?). If you are not convinced yet, I urge you to watch Von Ohain’s never seen before interviews that we published on the channel.

[@CR-sj7xd]

Probably propaganda scam, what explain todays Russia being the best aerospace jet engines industry while britons not even remembered 😂😂

[@Dronescapes]

Or perhaps you better get an education and learn about common history, such as the Soviets receiving the turbojet from the Brits, and copying it. Just in case you might want to also learn about the time they copying the B-29, or the time they (unsuccessfully) copied everything they could about the Concorde, making the atrociously dysfunctional Tu-144, or when they stole plans and tried to copy the Space Shuttle, making the vastly unknown Buran, which had had more success as a social media relic to be filmed and photographed in its coffin hangar in the middle of nowhere. Learning basic things is not that hard, but certainly harder than writing an inaccurate one line comment on KZbin. Ignorance is bliss? No really, it is a terrible curse. Just spend a few hours doing proper research, and you will find plently documents about the RR Nene/Whittle engine being given to the Soviets (and the other stories as well). Learning is a good thing, do not be scared.

[@Baggio10100]

there was NEVER an alliance between the Soviets and the Nazis; it was a pact of NON AGGRESSION....you can have your own opinion, NOT YOUR OWN FACTS...

[@erepsekahs]

It is pored over...not rained over, as in pouring with rain. They pored over the aircraft studying it meticulously. To pore over a problem --- engross one self in the problem. I don't want my kids, or others leaning bad grammar from youtube.

[@greyjamiesod4989]

Repetitive at the end.

[@seanoneill139]

It was Britain no England that stood up to Fermdny and the Soviet Union . You are not a yank so please see accurate !!

[@Dronescapes]

You are right, but this was made quite sometime ago, so it cannot be corrected anymore (the production was Canadian). I bet that you can spot plenty of mistakes on the BBC on a daily basis, and the producer had an infinitesimal budget compared to networks that have budgets that allow to have a large staff, including proofing. I think what is truly interesting is the main story, which opens the doors for lesser known ones, such as Sir Frank Whittle’s, at least by the general public. After all he was rejected, ignored, and ridiculed by his own people in power (British), and he was a true genius. Those were the true mistakes that deprived the country from having an operational turbojet before the beginning of WW2. The reasons and mistakes behind “gifting” the turbojet to the Soviet Union is also worthy studying. I suspect that a small mistake about British/English is inconsequential compared to a story that points out massive mistakes that literally changed history . It is a matter of perspectives I guess. I think that in learning about these errors, we can perhaps survive if the narrator made a sort of trivial one.

[@spinnenbein1]

And the Britains has stolen from german franz anselm engine!

[@Dronescapes]

The British, not the Britains! Also, if you think that Britain need to copy the disastrous, flawed and short lived Jumo engines, you do not have a clue about the history of the turbojet. Britain had both centrifugal and axial turbojets in the early 40s. As a matter of fact they had been working on both since the late 20s. Griffith, the same person who judged (and rejected) Whittle's work in 1929, was the author of a seminal paper on axial compressors in 1926, that is, my friend, almost two decades before the Jumo was (disastrously) deployed. Those Nazi engines were so hopeless that after the war, NOBODY, except the French, cared about them. The Soviets gave it a try (all available variants), and as we know, they discarded them as useless. The French (if you had the courtesy of reading previous comments, you would not have posted a useless, redundant comment) assembled 120 Nazi engineers and put them to work to make those engines operationally usable. It took them 8 (!) years to finally have a proper engine, but they had to radically modify them and required help from abroad. When Griffith was penning his seminal papers theorizing axial turbojets, Von Ohain was a teenager who had no clue about turbojets, and Anselm was 26 years old, and as we know he followed Von Ohain's work. By the way, as described in previous comments, Von Ohain had full access to Whittle's work, which had not been secreted, when he began working on a turbojet. Stop trying to glorify German turbojets. They were forced to deploy a piece of junk engine that was an operational disaster to keep up the psychotic Nazi propaganda. Britain had no reason whatsoever to do so, as it would have been an idiotic move to do so. For everything else, read more comments, or read them at all before adding yours, and pick up a proper history book rather than reading Wikipedia. The history of the turbojet is actually interesting if you learn the proper one.

[@AlexUncut]

word gift is rather laughable. capitalistic history is all about stealing, take fb for example...

[@CrosszzZZ]

I don't like the engine. We have to move on. The centrifugal supercharger is a dead end. The future is axial superchargers. Britain is lucky that the USSR gave it something for its outdated engine.

[@Dronescapes]

First of all that engine is still used in, for example, helicopters, so it is still relevant, but most importantly, Whittle had effectively presented his invention in 1929, ditching the axial compressor at the time for a very specific (and quite smart) reason: it would have taken decades to make it work properly, as it turned out to be the case. His misfortune was that the person put in charge to judge his project was Mr. Griffith, the author of a seminal paper on axial compressors in 1926, and one of the fathers of the axial turbojet. Of course Griffith rejected his project, but also made sure that Whittle was ignored, ridiculed, and ostracized. That caused a delay in development that ranged between 6 and 8 years. Whittle would have to wait until mid 1935 to start proper development after he fortunately managed to find a private backer that provided very limited funding, but sufficient to demonstrate his invention was sound. It took him less than 2 years to do so. Imagine if Griffith had supported him, and Whittle had been backed by the British government..They would have had the perfect turbojet at the time well before the beginning of the war, not a flawed one at the very end like the Germans had. Also, do not forget that the first German turbojet powered flight was mixed powered, also incorporating Whittle’s invention. It is also unfair to dismiss such a brilliant invention that was responsible for the kickstarting U.S. industry (it was both G.E. and Pratt & Whitney’s first turbojet, starting 1941, when Whittle was sent to the U.S. in great secrecy with his engine). To downplay Whittle’s contribution is utterly simplistic, especially considering he was very well aware of the potential of axial compressors, but being verity smart, he also understood timelines, urgency, and opportunity, something that both the likes of Griffith and even more so the Germans, failed to understand. Suffice to remind you that Von Ohain and Heikel, in an act of desperation tried to revert back to a centrifugal turbojet and outright copy Whittle, but it was too little too late. Timing is everything, and Whittle was right on target at the right time, and in the right place. His misfortune was to have a judge that was blatantly biased and had an obvious conflict of interest. The Germans grossly overestimated their abilities to produce a reliable engine despite the amount of resources poured into development by multiple companies (BMW, Junkers, Heinkel, Daimler). Their axial turbojet was an utter failure at the time, just good for propaganda purposes, and virtually useless after the war. Griffith and the likes of Metrovick had been developing their axial turbojets that would eventually become viable in the mid-50s, but not before the first U.S. jet fighter, or the first jet airliner, of for that matter the first jet Soviet fighter were powered by Whittle’s centrifugal turbojet. A Meteor powered by Whittle’s engine would match the speed of a Me 262 in 1945. Imagine having a reliable engine in 1939 instead of the German utterly flawed axial one in late 1944! That would have made a world of difference back then. To put it simply, the Brilliant British inventor was years ahead of everyone else, and unlike his counterparts on both sides, was strategically smart. He did not make mistakes, all the other players did.

[@CrosszzZZ]

@@Dronescapes I heard that Britain developed more heat-resistant alloys than Germany. And that was the success, not the centrifugal design. That is, if BMW blades were made from British Nimonic, it would become a very good engine.

[@Dronescapes]

The proof to the contrary can be traced back to post WW2. the French, the only nation that showed any interest in the German engines, assembled 120 (ex) Nazi engineers, mostly involved in the project, and put them to work, funded by government money. The aim was obviously to mainly challenge the British (both axial and centrifugal). It took the French a gruelling eight years to make them work properly, but to do so they had to radically modify them, and go through a vast number of variants. They also ended up seeking external help from another nation... Perhaps, buy I seriously think they would have, the German could have achieved the same goal, but that would have set them in the 1950s, and I think there is no better proof of how the issues with those engines went far beyond materials. You can also cite the brief encounter the Soviets had with those engines, trashing all variants almost on the spot, and opting to simply copy RR/Whittle's engine instead. It was also good business for them, as they sold those copied engines left and right across communist nations. If we go by ifs and buts, then Whittle would have been a million years ahead of Germans with a perfect transitional engine that was both reliable, easy to build,and to incrementally develop until it reached the peak, and again, that would have been, in a perfect world, around 1937/1938, opposed to Germany's late 1944, and if Whittle's engine could match the Me 262 in 1945 fitted in a Meteor, imagine the evolution it could have gone through between 1938 and 1944. Having Whittle's engine proved to be competitive until the mid 50s (MiG-15, etc.), the Germans would have never been able to catch up for the simple reason they were too far behind, unless of course the war lasted an additional decade.

[@ZaomiPro]

germany and soviet union were never in "alliance" ever heard of "barbarosa"?

[@ZaomiPro]

"soviet expansionism" almost vomited from laughing ah the english jokes

[@nomercynodragonforyou9688]

Cope

[@xandervk2371]

If you learn your history from Medinsky's textbooks, that's your own problem.

[@manojshankar8255]

Which the British took from the Germans after WW2

[@Dronescapes]

You are 100% wrong. Not only the turbojet was invented by a Brit, Sir Frank Whittle, but Britain had been working on both axial and centrifugal turbojets since the late 20s. The Me 262 had an excellent airframe, but those Nazi engines were a complete disaster, and definitively far away from being properly operational. After the war literally nobody, except the French, bothered to try to make anything out of them, and despite having assembled 120 ex Nazi engineers, it took the French 8 endless years, radical modifications, and assistance from a U.S. company to make them operationally sound. The Brits were far ahead in developing proper turbojets, they were just desperate like the German, so they did not deploy a technology that was anything but ready, or actually useful at the time. They concentrated their efforts on defeating Nazi Germany, rather than deploying useless technology that was only good for pathetic and desperate propaganda. Even the usual excuses about lack of materials represent only one of the many issues the Germans had. Considering that three companies (Heinkel, Junkers and BMW) worked and wasted resources on developing a turbojet, they had very little to show for all they invested. The Russians copied an engine presented by Whittle in 1929, one that saw the light in 1937 despite the inventor having been ignored for too many years. It was the first turbojet to work in the world, and he accomplished that feat with little private funding (£200,000 in today’s money). You might also have to learn that the first aircraft to have a turbojet, the Heinkel 178 in 1939, incorporated part of Whittle’s invention as well (mixed power centrifugal and axial). The German engineer, Hans Von Ohain, had accessed Whittle’s work which had been copied and distributed across German Universities.

[@rajesh_624]

Felt likr a cold war propoganda reel.

[@ryanrobison8973]

Yeah, I came to the comments to see if anyone else thought this video was weird. I'm not even sure what the angle is, but I have fact checked a couple of things stated in the vid and all of them were not described in good faith.

[@Dronescapes]

@ryanrobison8973 such as? Becuae the Klimov turbojet was definitely copied from Whittle/RR Nene engine. All you need is to look at them side by side, it is that simple. The Soviets loved copying. The B-29 comes to mind, among other things.

[@molajat6133]

Japanese invention The jet engine

[@Dronescapes]

Definitively not a Japanese invention

[@NothMeeh]

Nonsense

[@Alif-dg6oz]

Reminiscent of Americans giving Nazis a career in america

[@jameswoollard84]

It wasn't Rolls Royce - it was the Labour Government.

[@MM22966]

Yes, I am sure they threw themselves to the floor and cried out "You'll never get me to try and make money with the second largest country on earth!"

[@ndr8469]

Chinese jet engines are based on a licenced copy of wait for it. Rolls Royce engines too. Another Labour party policy for good relations?

[@JLSMaytham]

@@MM22966 they were strapped for cash because none of the "aid" was free, unlike Ukraine (maybe we forgot to give 10% to the big guy?). Yes, it was the government because they had to approve it and they needed the money but also Rolls Royce wanted to remain viable so they didn't go the way of the Miles Aircraft Company ( designers of the X-15) or if Canadian Avro (who solved supersonic wing design). There were others. The USA is exploitative and it's imagined technical superiority was built on stolen ideas and solutions. This guilt leads them to accuse others of what they do themselves.

[@jameswoollard84]

@@JLSMaytham Marshalll Aid didn't need to be repaid. How's the weather in Moscow?

[@laurencehoffelder1579]

@@jameswoollard84 But Lend Lease had to. In 47 it looked like they had to repay/return all

[@jhoncho4x4]

That Mig 15 is still on display in Dayton, Ohio. I've seen it several times; fantastic museum. Takes at least 2 days to visit. ME-262, V1, V2, Bockscar, Valkyrie, etc. Overwhelming history in one place.

[@lookoutforchris]

My favorite air museum.

[@danielcifuentes7198]

I went 2 months ago to Dayton. A wonderful experience, achilds dream coming true. Took me from 9 am to 5 pm to visit the museum (got only that day) missing some planes, yet, as you say, Overwhelmig and Wonderful

[@t5ruxlee210]

The Nene was a technological dead end and the world required these engines not as cutting edge technology but as stable machines for powering their new jet aircraft designs. The one thing you never want to try is sorting out the quirks of a new engine and the quirks of a new aircraft design on the same machine. So Stalin offered gold to a broke Britain and the deal went through. As an added bonus, the Soviets later reverse engineered and somewhat improved the Nene as a stopgap while getting their own jet engine designs sorted out. As to the origins of the Korean War, many members of the new North Korean army were tough verterans of the WW2 Red Army.

[@Dronescapes]

A very good explanation

[@arduinoguru7233]

​@@Dronescapes You forgot about a soviet officer ( _I can't remember his position_ ) paying a visit to Rolls-Royce factory, and collecting mineral filing with a rubber sponge attaches under his shoes, to later on, they were able to analysis the minerals/alloys used in production. You can say whatever you want about the soviet that time, but their scientist was very clever and develop their theoretical scantest theories to it max potentials , but the western arrogant can't accept that.

[@GG-ir1hw]

@@arduinoguru7233 Western arrogance can’t accept what? I give credit where credits due, their rocket science and space program was far more independent and cutting edge than the USAs who relied more on German scientists than the USSR. However Soviet education systems and quality in production lagged behind constantly. It’s not like the USSR had a broad educated middle class, backed by prestigious universities like those of Germany the UK and the USA. So they did rely a lot on copying, reverse engineering and stealing secret to learn and develop from, more so than any other nation bar China which mooched off them. Literally inventing new and innovative ways was something that occurred in the USSR also but the other half of that is that the USSR was straight up copying which is pragmatic but isn’t all that impressive. The closest they got to priority was probably 1950 after gain all the German scientists in combination with the infiltration of the Manhattan project and their industrial espionage here (jet engines), with the TU-4 and a number of other secrets. After this flurry of infiltration, defection and German brains the USSR began to slip increasingly behind, the occasional reverse engineering on Heat seeking missiles (the Aim-9 into the K-13) and the TU-144 being the rushed crude copying of the Concorde. The west never tried to imitate the USSR bar in space or being scared by what were in fact inferior machines such as MiG-25 Foxbat/Foxhound. But their own response the F-15 showed just how technology backwards the USSR really was. By the late 1970s-1990s the USSR was noticeably technologically behind just like it had been in the 1900 up until the mid to late 1940s.

[@ericadams3428]

The Nene was sold to many countries and the Russian could have easily obtained an example to reverse engineer so giving them an example wasn't thought as a risk. The issue being though is that it was thought that the Russian could not duplicate it without the special alloys but somehow they managed it. The Chinese copied the Russian copy of the Nene and Sir Stanley Hooker told them they had also copied Rolls Royce's original mistakes.

[@myparceltape1169]

​@@arduinoguru7233That might explain the disposable bootees that visitors have to put over their shoes in some places.

[@fritz3388]

Without the American economic support, most of all for the communist Soviet industries, the war in the Soviet Union would have been over in 1942. (The American Industrialist build the biggest truck factory until today, in the Soviet Union before the war, one reason to see so many American trucks in old Soviet era war documentaries, the American & Soviet trucks feature the same star of the devil on its doors) The many years long revolution war in Russia had destroyed most industries completely and killed most intellectuals from which the engineers came. The communist Soviet Union would not have been able to build up the military forces to attack all of Europe, what was Stalin's and his party plan & goal. Make the whole world communist. Nobody has supported this goal as the American and British did. By the way, did you the reader know that the Jew Karl Marx wrote his main work while living in Britain? That he was financially supported by the Scottish-British Free Masons? Communism was developed as a weapon to be deployed against “enemies” nations. Russia and China would not have become communist without support of the USA. The same goes for many communist African nations. Ask yourself, why did the US army pushed about ten European nations into the chains and terror of the communist Soviet Union. Go, and ask them if they felt liberated? Their communist ordeal only ended beginning 1989 for Hungary & Poland and others, but took until 1991 for countries like Albania. The so-called "Cold War" only happened in the media, not in real life. The communist could always buy anything of western technology, as long as they could pay with cash! That the early German jet engines did not live that long, was because the manufacturers could not get the needed materials like high quality steel and titanium, as they needed to be imported. That is why their power potential could not be realised.

[@borincod]

Telling that Brits were trying to persuade Stalin not to trust Hitler with no avail is a funny twist indeed, considering British delegation sabotaged the alliance agreement between USSR, France and UK to stir up a fight between USSR and Germany; and considering Stalin signed the pact with Germany to win time preparing for the unavoidable war

[@bluemouse5039]

One of the problems the Soviet Jet engine designers had the hindered development was the turbine blades tended to break apart or shatter at high speed while the Rolls Royce engine had solved the problem because of the metal used had different alloys which gave it the ability to withstand heat and pressure , Some members of the Soviet delegation that were taken on a tour of the Rolls Royce plant wore shoes that had soft rubber soles and walked around the areas where the turbine blades were being machined to pick up the metal particles as they were embedded into the soft rubber soles of their shoes to take back to Russia for their scientists to figure out the composition of the metal, they did that in case the British did not go thru with the sale of the jet engine

[@dasdasdatics420]

Lies and complete rubbish The turbine blades were air cooled and this prevented them from disintegration.

[@joseveintegenario-nisu1928]

@@bluemouse5039 These RR Turbines had centrifugal compressors, worse than German Axial flow Turbines

[@janlampert5688]

You must come from Bond 007 family. 😂😂😂

[@dasdasdatics420]

@@bluemouse5039 Do you honestly think that rolls Royce would allow the factory floor to be so cluttered with rubbish and swarf that government diplomats would be able to collect such stuff on their shoes. ?

[@mochacosgranday4205]

no one to say that Jet technology was stolen from Germany 😂

[@peterfable]

8:29... Referencing the P-39 Aircobra when you claim it "aggravates the Soviets to be given older technology but they make do with what they're given." Never have I heard a more preposterous statement based on ZERO facts. Firstly, the P-39 was a an almost radical cutting-edge brand-spanking new fighter designed with an engine behind the pilot, a car-door like cockpit entry, and cannon shooting through the propeller hub, just recently put into service, not some "old" castoff. The Soviets actually LOVED their P-39s. You correctly stated it was unpopular in the West because it did not fit the combat characteristics encountered most often there, i.e. high altitude interceptions. However the P-39 EXCELLED and was easily the equal or superior to any other fighter in the kind of low level combat and ground harassment that almost exclusively predominated in the war in the East. Don't even get me started on how they adored their American M4 Sherman tanks they received even over their own vaunted T-34s. I'll give you slight leeway that perhaps you might have jumped to such an ignorant conclusion because the Spitfires first given to the Soviets were not the latest models. Didn't matter because the Soviets rejected the type as a whole as unsuitable for those very same conditions the P-39 and later aircraft of their own design excelled at. Too fragile, too narrow an undercarriage for their rough runways, wouldn't run well on Soviet low-octane fuel, and their pilots weren't familiar with wing-mounted armament. Using your example to broadly suggest the West of basically dumping "old" hardware on the Soviets is just plain WRONG. At a precise moment in history when ANYTHING was better than nothing, they actually received the best from the West - that was available to give at the time. I don't think there is a more beloved "Soviet" "fighting" vehicle than the American Studebaker 2.5 ton 6x6 truck, which many a soldier never knew wasn't home grown.

[@johnhudghton3535]

Absolutely right

[@Dave56-qu8yi]

THE RUSSIANS ALSO PUT THE MERLIN ENGIN IN THE AIRCOBRA

[@magoid]

The Soviets also received the P-47, a aircraft with even more advanced technologies than the P-39.

[@garethdavies2538]

It might have been a "radical cutting-edge brand-spanking new fighter design," but the US Airforce didn't fancy it at all.

[@MrRobertX70]

Thank you! I was about to make a similar comment but decided it unnecessary after reading yours. You are 100% correct.

[@Sacto1654]

But yet, the Soviet aerospace industry still did not fully take advantage of what the Nene engine offered in the long term, probably because it was a centrifugal flow engine, not the axial flow engine commonly used today. Soviet jet engines up until the 1980's were in many ways technologically inferior to their Western counterparts until when the Soviets were finally able to develop on their own full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) to develop engines like high-bypass turbofans for the Antonov An-72 transport and the Antonov An-124 large transport, and the engines for the MiG-29 and Su-27 jet fighter.

[@volhv2548]

I am sure Royce refused payments in gold and diamonts, just to make the country proud.

[@B-26354]

The documentary largely omits that it was communist sympathetic Labour ministers who gave the Soviets the engine. Never trust Labour.

[@trevortrevortsr2]

The US got the Radar Magnetron - we were all on the same side back then

[@ndr8469]

@@trevortrevortsr2 we pawned our secrets to save ourselves and Europe. Now they look to Germany in Europe. Let's not bother next time. Let them enjoy European unity marching across the globe.

[@JLSMaytham]

A classic US foreign policy own goal. Rolls Royce was allowed to sell those engines because the British Government were so strapped for cash by US actions. We simply needed the money to pay for all the lend-lease.

[@briangray5921]

Sorry for saving your Country.

[@ryanreedgibson]

@@briangray5921 Don't be arrogant. Britain paid us back every dime for lend-lease about ten years ago. And our ally paid us back in blood when we committed a war crime and invaded Iraq the second time.

[@americansailor7967]

Ah Yes. He was a traitor because of America. Spoken like a true Marxist.

[@Jack-bs6zb]

@ryanreedgibson … exactly so. The post war Lockheed Shooting Star similarly benefitted from the British Goblin engine. The present day F35 (vtol version) also uses the Rolls Royce Liftsystem and F135 engine. Another ungrateful act was to prevent the US invading Canada in 1812. 😊

[@JLSMaytham]

@@briangray5921 Yeah, like you saved South America, Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, The Philipines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Serbia etc.? Or "saved" Germany by destroying the civilian infrastructure of a NATO Ally? Kissinger summed you up well "to be the friend of the USA is fatal". An occupying, exploitative colonial power is not welcome so establishes 800+ bases in fewer than 200 countries that are members of the UN! Yankee go home. Besides, if you look at any historical data the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany, D-Day was a side show numerically and the USA adopted the nazi regime and ideology after hanging the ringleaders for public consumption. You have nothing to be proud of

[@pierredenis1071]

And Canada lost the attempt to build our own turbine airplane " the " Avro " We prefer to buy used submarines 10 billions $ from UK and they never served If I recall

[@gagamba9198]

In July 1940 during a conversation with the British ambassador to Moscow Stafford Cripps the Soviet leader said that before the outbreak of the Second World War no Soviet-British rapprochement was possible as his country focused on the demolition of the 'old' balance of powers built after the First World War without the Soviet Union, while Great Britain fought for its retention. Cripps cabled London and reported Stalin's comments: 'The Soviet Union wanted to change the old equilibrium, while England and France wished preserve it. Also Germany wanted to make a change in the equilibrium and this common desire to do away with the old equilibrium became the basis for the rapprochement with the Germans.'

[@MKSense1]

And what was USSR bringing to the world? Bolshevism. Russians can't be trusted. Also Brits have a weird slippery way of thinking. Surely enough this equilibrium can be broken by individuals whom reasonable can be called traitors.

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

The engine was an out of date model. The technology of that jet had been proven to be a dead end. Rolls Royce had moved on to modern to modern turbo jets. Also this dead end technology was sold not given

[@Dronescapes]

All true, but the dead end centrifugal turbojet proved quite efficient and lethal when used in the MiG 15, mostly because of its swept wings. Ironically the U.S. initially deployed the F-80 Shooting Star against the MiG, and it had a variant of the same engine. Despite having been designed by the great Kelly Johnson, it crucially lacked swept wings, and proved to be inferior, which is why eventually the F-86 was rushed into action, opening the operational door for axial turbojets. Given how many units were also (probably) sold to China by the Soviet Union, those few units sold by Britain proved to be quite a gift in practical terms

[@JohnSmith-bx8zb]

@@Dronescapes you could also point out the uk gave the info to the USA of the Miles M.52. This gift gave them the supersonic crown. Pity they did not sell it to them

[@Dronescapes]

Quite honestly when it comes to the M.52 things get a lot more complicated, and the lack of documentation does not help. If you rely on Eric Brown, Miles assisted Bell with aerodynamic issues, but that’s about it. It is safe to assume that the M.52 was abruptly shut down to favor Bell’s race to break the sound barrier. To the ones that think the shut down happened because of lack of funding, that is not correct, as they still had a good amount of funds at their disposal. To the ones that say that Whittle’s engine did not exist, there is evidence it did, and it was also successfully tested. The M.52 was already scheduled for the test with Brown as test pilot. Perhaps we will never know the truth. On the other hand Britain did not only share the centrifugal turbojet (and sent Whittle to the U.S. in great secrecy), but they also shared everything they knew about the axial turbojet (Metrovick, etc.). Britain had been working on both since the late 20s, but unlike Germany they did not deploy operationally an immature, and quite frankly strategically not that important at the time, technology. You can argue that if Griffith had not stopped Whittle for at least 6 years, then Britain could have had a proper turbojet before the beginning of WW2, but perhaps Griffith’s stance is another mystery, or in my opinion a blatant conflict of interests, or more simply jealousy. Letting Whittle’s patent lapse because of lack of funding, and not making his invention a national secret, allowed Nazi Germany to take his work, copy it, and distribute it across German Universities, landing on the desk of a young Hans Von Ohain. In 1938, the first jet powered aircraft to take to the skies (for a very, very short time), the He 178, was mixed powered, centrifugal and axial combined, opening the doors for further development. I believe Griffith, despite his important contributions to the axial turbojet, should be forever remembered as the person that delayed the British turbojet by many, many years, making a dreadful mistake.

[@khankrum1]

Burgess , Philby, Maclean, Blunt and Cripps!

[@NothMeeh]

Criminals

[@rogerbeck1293]

And Ramsey McDonald

[@flparkermdpc]

Yeah they stole and copied it, but their inadequate knowledge of metallurgy rewarded their efforts with engines that broke at very inconvenient times. Like... on takeoff.

[@johnarmstrong3140]

I visited Beirut 5 years ago and stumbled upon the apartment building Kim Philby lived in. It would have been lovely 60 years ago )

[@Deepthought-42]

10:39 Strange that Americans should find urious and worrysome. giving the people of Britain education, free heath care social security and building houses to replace bombed out houses and slums. What should they have been given after six years of war?

[@freemenofengland2880]

Looking back with hindsight it was a genius move and a response to being locked out of the nuclear 'Special Relationship' which had begun with Los Alamos. Britain didn't want to see the US dominate the world, especially as we had already gifted the US with a properly working Jet Engine mid-World War Two. It was about balance.

[@jerrinthottan9610]

Soviets got the tech from shot down German me 262 just like the British.

[@banejova8643]

Russia will give UK food and fuel so they won’t starve.

[@williba24]

Labour prime minister Clem Atlee in 1946 gave 6 jet engines to Stalin with plans and permission to build free of any cost obviously with the help of Cripps.

[@garethhughes5745]

I'm glad you made a video about this, as I've known we gave them Jet technology, but didn't know all about it. Great video, nice narration, thank you.

[@jfb3567]

And Whittle’s engine had already been sent to the US so GE engineers could “do something” with it. As I recall , in 1941

[@paolomesseca8679]

Considering the death toll that Soviet Union payed fighting the Germans, it was well worthwile to "offer" them a Rolls Royce motor.

[@cluckingbells]

I'm still not clear if the then Labour government cabinet had to approve this sale of the engine to the Soviets ?

[@dalek3086]

they sure had to approve the sale - and they did approve it

[@EpicThe112]

Here's the odd part in the Korean war VK-1 Russian reversed engineer RR Nene has to go up against the PW J42 the US licensed produced RR Nene. Between the Two which was better US or Russian version

[@reynardus1359]

France did not "give in quickly to the Nazis". France was defeated when the British treacherously run away leaving the French to fend for themselves. In fact the British spent the rest of the war being chased by the Germans from Greece, Crete, Tunisia, Libya, and most of Egypt and the Japanese from Burma and Singapore.

[@Thenogomogo-zo3un]

Could have got even worse, India was having talks with the Japanese. Well Britain lost India after WWII anyway and alot of other colonies and protectorates too.

[@SR-75Penetrator]

This is a very interesting video, I did want to know more about this, so this is a perfect video!

[@Dronescapes]

Glad you liked it!

[@blintzkreig1638]

The Chinese army was not volunteer. That is some significant misinformation.

[@NewScottishGentry]

thanks random internet stranger, i will take this statement lacking any citation at face value to heart!

[@craigbeatty8565]

How was it not treason by Labour?

[@MM22966]

That charge gets sticky when it is the ruling government making the decision as policy. If it could be made true, what would happen to any government replaced by its rival after an election?

[@ndr8469]

Socialist solidarity

[@paxwallace8324]

So full of shit why wasn't OSS CIA founder Allen and John Foster Dulles's great love of Nazis and willingness to befriend 3rd Reich Industrialists and their interests before and after WWll Treason?? Not to mention all the other UK and American fat cat Nazi Sympathizers. All you conservatives are closeted NAZIS. That's the real problem.

[@vumba1331]

What about the advanced aero technology that was given to the Americans, was that not also treason?

[@MM22966]

@@vumba1331 Well, I'd say there's a difference between your allied cousins who you sometimes have disagreements with, and a bloody-handed police state that points nuclear weapons at you and regularly threatens your destruction. Oh, wait, you were talking about 1946, weren't you?

[@robertwoodliff5622]

Cannot remember who / which company it was .., but as i understand it .., one of the ship building companys on the Clyde or Tyne sold ships to Japan in the early 20th centuary .., which included the engineering drawings ... They never came back ...

[@StevenBrown-w5b]

The Japanese navy , between 1890 and 1930 , was basically the Royal Navy of the East .

[@theknifedude1881]

No wonder the U.S. wanted to keep some Atomic Secrets close. I wasn’t there so I it’s all Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

[@Deepthought-42]

10:57 It’s odd that America found “curious and worrysome” social developments such as education free health and social services and providing housing to replace slums and that destroyed in the war. A clear difference i. priorities for a nation after suffering six years of war.

[@NATES84]

Oh stop whining about free fighting aircraft we gave to Russia and plenty more vehicles and hardware

[@rajendrasinghchouhan5677]

आप अपने वक्तव्य को सही कीजिए भारत ने ब्रिटिशर्स को सेकंड वर्ल्ड वार में पूरा स्पोर्ट किया था 2.5 मिलियन ब्रिटिश इंडियन आर्मी ने एक्सिस पावर के खिलाफ लड़ाई लड़ी थी और लगभग 87000 भारतीयों ने अपने प्राण न्योछावर किए थे

[@paulgeraghty1448]

It was not Rolls Royce it was Harold Wilson's Labour Government

[@dalek3086]

Wrong - the Attlee Labour Government. Wilson was the Minister responsible. Undocumented allegations by senior British Intelligence officers that Wilson was a Soviet Spy.

[@catadoxas]

this is simply false. a nonagression pact is very different from an alliance. the germans had already decided they would invade the USSR. and the USSR was simply waiting for the germans to do their schliefenplan 2.0

[@AlanSummers-r7w]

Again - “ England, England England “ obviously written by ‘ the English’ . I wish everyone would appreciate that it wasn’t ’England’ under threat - wasn’t the English fighting and perishing, it was the British empire and allies . BTW the uk isn’t England - would be nice to remember .

[@TinyBearTim]

Womp womp

[@NothMeeh]

This is barely comprehensible. Are you somehow blaming Scotland?