The Gloster E.1/44 (GA.2); Ace or Gormless?

[@bigblue6917]

Never underestimate A Bloke In A Shed.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

They somehow manage to remain on shed-hule

[@bigblue6917]

@@stephenrickstrew7237 I'll have to tell my partner that one. She loves puns. Ok, I laughed as well.😁 Just came across a photograph of a black Jeep. Licence plate is BAABAA. Thought you'd like that one.

[@maxdevlin4349]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/m2Gsp6KBrNt4mNU Two Blokes in a shed as well.

[@duellingscarguevara]

The hand painted sign, “POWERJETS OFFICES👉”

[@LenTexDIY]

Ed I just wanted to say I LOVE your channel. Thank you for all your hard work!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Thank you!

[@kiparis311]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I too love this channel. I download every one of your videos and keep them on my drive just in case anything ever happens to your channel, the sheer amount of obscure aviation history on here is just so unique

[@tallthinkev]

Blokes in a shed? Not one of them had a flat cap and no sign of a whippet! It could have been so different

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

And a woodbine!

[@robbabcock_]

The early days of jet aviation really were the Wild West!

[@richardnicklin654]

Surprised there’s no discussion of the Ace’s main competitor: de Havilland’s Vampire (which used the Goblin engine and flew in 1945).

[@jimdavis8391]

...1943 actually.

[@richardnicklin654]

@@jimdavis8391 good point, thank you for picking me up on that. I was thinking of the in service date.

[@youthere7327]

swept leading wing, 4 central hispano, world record speed, twin boom tail. if it was german, it would be screamed about

[@Farweasel]

Those Vampires were tough, durable little bastids. I watched one having its nose repaired - with what looked suspiciously like car body filler - in the mid-nineties at Cranfield. "Oh, yeah", I was told. "It'll be fine. Its for one of the smaller African Countries' Ariforce. Oh yeah. Combat jet definitely".

[@richardvernon317]

@@Farweasel Front of the Vampire and Venom were made out of Wood!!!

[@stansbornak8116]

How about a video on early in-flight refueling?

[@johnjephcote7636]

I bought Bill Waterton's book 'The Quick and the Dead' back in the 1950s. He was test pilot for Glosters and was damning about the 'Gormless'. He was not too happy about the Javelin either, in fact, beyond the Meteor days, he did not have a happy relationship with Glosters.

[@richardvernon317]

He publicly slated the Javelin and got sacked!!! His would be the only compony Test Pilot who wrote book that I would believe about what an aircraft was actually like to fly.

[@mattheweagles5123]

I was told that the first flight of the E28 wasn't actually 5th May but 8th April at Brockworth. This was designated as a ground run but the test pilot wanted to find out the take off characteristics and stability so he got the aircraft airborne for a few hundred meters.

[@Anmeteor9663]

True. It flew a short distance from Brockworth field next to the Gloster factory to Morten Valence airfield just south of Gloucester. It was then dismantled and taken by lorry to RAE. Reassembled there and test flights began.

[@scrumpydrinker]

The details and events leading up to the swap of facilities between Rolls Royce and Rover are covered in Stanley Hookers autobiography “ Not much of an engineer” a thoroughly recommended read by a leading engineer in te world of jet engine development.

[@aaronlopez492]

"A tube trunk-less silver winged of an elephant of an aircraft." I have a funny feeling Mr. Walterton wasn't too fond of the aircraft. Just saying. Thank you Ed for such an interesting history of early British jet/aircraft development.

[@lllordllloyd]

I've read a few test pilot biographies including 'The Quick and the Dead'. Warneton seems to be alone in really resenting the fact he could easily be killed because, say, someone couldn't be bothered putting the canopy release somewhere where he could reach it. He's sort of like the comic strip character Dilbert.

[@167curly]

The Gloster Meteor's various production models were powered by two Derwent engines giving 3,600 lbs of thrust each, and you failed to mention that the DH Vampire was pretty much contemporary with the Meteor.

[@GARDENER42]

Frank Whittle, Barnes Wallis, Watson-Watt, John Randall & Harry Boot - all had to push hard to get what became vital developments accepted by the government.

[@simong9067]

Looks ridiculous in hindsight, but imagine yourself as the civil servant having to sort out the genuinely revolutionary proposals from the throng of crackpots plaguing you with proposals for death rays, flying tanks and spaceships to Mars.

[@wideyxyz2271]

Don't forget Tommy Flowers!!!!

[@stephenpointon]

You forgot Sir Stanley Hooker

[@jnk542]

Thank you, I thoroughly enjoy your videos.

[@SimonWallwork]

This must be the Clunker that Glosters' CTP Bill Waterton, refers to in his book 'The quick and the dead'? Ah, having watched the whole video now, it was!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Worth having a look at John's article on this subject.

[@1944GPW]

There is some footage of the Gloster Ace about 18 minutes from the beginning of the prescient film 'No Highway in the Sky' starring Jimmy Stewart and Marlene Dietrich. You can watch it here on KZbin. I say prescient because the film's plot revolves around metal fatigue in aircraft and came out a couple of years before the De Havilland Comet crashes.

[@kirkmooneyham]

The Gloster E.1/44 actually looked pretty good, and sad to see it didn't do better than it did.

[@heroicvictory]

That deal, the one that seems so hard to imagine being done that way today, was that the one done in a pub? The Swan and Royal I think?

[@jonathansteadman7935]

Cor blimey, a baby Meteor ! Never heard of the Ace. Here's to 'Blokes in Sheds'! 🍺

[@rovercoupe7104]

Brilliant. M

[@alan-sk7ky]

2:00 been a while (40+ years) since I last looked at a MAP control line model plan 🙂

[@robertdodd2087]

Good spot

[@TheWirksworthGunroom]

Rover did go on to build gas-turbines. Aside from some used as experimental automotive powerplants, they built APUs for aircraft such as the Avro Vulcan. the Nimrod and probably many others. I have a vague recollection of a fire pump too.... anybody?

[@richardvernon317]

Yes and in the Falklands they failed a lot of the time!!

[@TheWirksworthGunroom]

@@richardvernon317 Are you referring to naval fire pumps? Please elaborate.

[@richardvernon317]

@@TheWirksworthGunroom Yes!!! Rover fire pumps on HMS Sheffield failed to work.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Mr Ed Nash thanks very much indeed..... Shoe🇺🇸

[@glynwelshkarelian3489]

The Pulqui would be a good aircraft to cover. Kurt Tank in Argentina.

[@oxcart4172]

Why didn't Carter know anything about swept wings?

[@robertpatrick3350]

No idea….. but there must be something to quantify the drag? Airflow impact of the propeller. I assume it takes less force to push a jet plane forward than a propeller one?

[@lllordllloyd]

"Priority remained low, understandable as Gloster were building Meteors". For Glosters, yes. But while Britain was struggling to build straight-wing jets of minimal ambition, Russia and the US were driving ahead into the swept-wing, transonic, mass production fighters that would provide the expertise to underpin the fantastic leaps in speed and capability that would characterise the 1950s. It was in the late 1940s that the British aero industry really lost its way, in part by romanticising what could be built in sheds.

[@davidmartyn5044]

Interesting comment. Britain was in the process of re-building and would go on into the 1960s. Its housing, factories and dockyards all sought labour for high priority work, something the US didn't have to do. I have always thought that the F-86 sabre was THE machine of the time but the US also built several straight winged jet which were average at best.

[@jonsouth1545]

The Supermarine Swift literally first flew in December 1948 and had wings that were swept back further than the F86 which first flew only 1 year earlier. The idea that the UK wasn't building and using Swept Wing jets in the 1950s is ridiculous. In Early at the same time the F86 and the Mig 15 were the majority fighter of the respective USAF and the Soviets for UK service the RAF was also transitioning to jets like the Supermarine Swift the Hawker Hunter and several others. Yes the UK didn't use them overseas so they never got a chance to shine in places like Korea etc but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. The UK had several swept-wing aircraft in the 1950s the Sea Vixen first flew in 1951 but was delayed in service as they needed to refit the carriers the Supermarine Scimitar was also a swept-wing design from the 1950s.

[@awatt]

Concorde

[@WilhelmKarsten]

​@@awattConcorde is a French aircraft

[@richardfroud8970]

Well said👌

[@wwmoggy]

love the U control line model Plans

[@JGCR59]

The Ace fails the "if it looks right, it flies right" test :)

[@drmoss_ca]

Ooh! A KeilKraft plan for the Meteor?

[@1IbramGaunt]

I still wonder how things might have gone had the British government been less hesitant and those very first pre-war jets had actually gotten into combat, underpowered and underarmed or not it might still have meant us having jet fighters during the Battle Of Britain

[@andrewfischer8564]

i saw a show that showed that if the germans had jets the chain home radar would have been useless at the battle of brittan

[@1IbramGaunt]

@@andrewfischer8564 that's pretty unlikely lol, some of the late-war German designs LOOKED a bit like modern Stealth-jets sure but that didn't mean they were

[@andrewfischer8564]

@@1IbramGaunt it wsnt about stealth. the figherts would have been faster then chain home could respond.

[@1IbramGaunt]

@@andrewfischer8564 maybe so then; by the time the Nazi's had jets in our world we were pretty good at just seeing V1 Flying Bombs the old fashioned way and shooting them down though, both with our own new Meteor jets and with "old-fashioned" prop-planes like the Spitfire haha, so even if we wouldn't have seen the German jets coming that still wouldn't necessarily have meant much. Let's not forget how unreliable and dangerous German jet-engines were too. I dunno if that would've all been as true in 1940 as it was in '44-'45 of course, but Britain still stood a chance

[@andrewfischer8564]

@@1IbramGaunt i wish i could remember the tittle so you could watch their analysis

[@rovercoupe7104]

I love Rover. M.

[@paulhunter7002]

Model aeroplane plans for the Gloster Meteor really?

[@Eric-kn4yn]

How do they measure thrust

[@christophermcguire27]

Thing about the Meteor was more reliable engines, cannon, check the wings, though not, (unlike the 262) swept back therefore slower dear friends

[@awatt]

The 262's wings were swept to keep the CG because the original engine didn't work and the replacement was very different. Swept wings don't equal "go faster."

[@WilhelmKarsten]

​​@@awattThat's an egregious lie, the Me-262 was designed from inception to have swept wings. Germany was years ahead of the British in high speed aerodynamic technology.. they built the first supersonic aircraft in WW2..

[@WilhelmKarsten]

​​@@awattIt obvious that you are nothing more than a uneducated polish cook, any engineer will tell you that the key to the Me-262 huge advantage in top speed is the result of its superior aerodynamic design featuring swept wings and a all swept empennage, it's the first aircraft to have a fly-by-wire Horizontal Stabilator system.

[@stevetournay6103]

Another new one on me. Saw the header shot and thought "Supermarine Attacker forerunner?" Interesting that one of this bird's test pilots was Bill Waterton. He was the first to fly the Avro Canada CF-100, and his fellow Gloster pilot Jan Zurakowski later became first to fly the near-mythic Arrow. Tail unit layout of the Ace/Meteor 8 is very like that on the CF-100...

[@macjim]

Are you able to find footage of the meteor and me262 in service during the war? Is there anything about how these two aircraft would have got on in combat against each other, and which was the better fighter? Although the meteor did get into service before the war ended, there’s little known how the meteor fared… I know it was used against the flying bomb but I’ve not been able to find much about it’s war use other than the allies seemed too scared to use it effectively in case it fell into the hands of the nazis… I don’t think they would have been all that impressed with the meteor though.

[@allangibson8494]

The Meteor was 10% faster than the Me262 (the swept wing on the Me262 wasn’t a design feature but rather a bug fix because they got the centre of gravity too far aft). The Meteor Derwent engines were also far more reliable than the Me262’s Jumo’s and more responsive to throttle changes (unless you include the Jumo’s habit of exploding on rapid throttle adjustment). The superior reliability of the British engines was why everyone copied them after WW2 (including people with the manufacturing equipment for the Jumo’s like the Czechoslovakians).

[@janvanhaaster2093]

@@allangibson8494 Wrong. The post-war Meteors were faster (because they got ever better engines with ever more thrust), but you have to compare them at the same time; and during WW2 the Me262 was faster than the Meteor: the Meteor F.1 just managed 417 mph, the Meteor F.3 managed 520 mph; whereas the 262 managed 560 mph ! ; it also was more heavily armed and it truely was a formidable air superiority fighter with light and effective controls, perfectly harmonised, right up to the maximum permissible speed. In a dogfight the Meteor would have had no chance against a 262.

[@allangibson8494]

@@janvanhaaster2093 The Derwent Engined Meteor set a world speed record on 7 November 1945 at 606 mph (975 kms). The wartime Meteors were faster than you seem to think.

[@janvanhaaster2093]

@@allangibson8494 I reckon you know that at 7.11.45 the war was already over? Only the later F.3 with Derwent engines (initially they had Welland engines) and the longer engine nacelles had this higher speeds. But during the war the then Meteor was thus much slower than the then 262.

[@allangibson8494]

@@janvanhaaster2093 So did the British when the PUBLISHED the true performance figures for the Meteor. In 1945 the Meteor was the fastest thing in the sky that had a man in it.

[@carlwheezerofsouls3273]

Damn, whatever glasses those blokes in a shed were wearing must have zoomed their eyes out, needed an RPM dial the size of a mans chest. 0:37

[@DiegoPatriciodelHoyo]

Isn't this the Pioneer?

[@stephenpointon]

There is a story that the chairman of RR and the chairman of Rover decided on the deal to swap the nottingham factory making the meteor tank engine for the Rover barnoldswick plant and the gas turbine project over a game of snooker at a gentleman's club in london one lunch I believe its in the "100 years of rolls royce " book. Now I love old folklore but that story seems rather far fetched considering how important both endeavors were while at war.

[@scrumpydrinker]

Stanley Hookers book “Not much of a engineer” covers this, apparently it was a “five bob dinner” in a pub in the midlands somewhere.

[@stephenpointon]

@@scrumpydrinker I must try and get that book, i used to work at RR in Barnoldswick or as it was nicknamed Hooker's bloody shed!

[@scrumpydrinker]

@@stephenpointon try Amazon, though I bought my copy from Aerospace Bristol, which is an amazing aircraft museum to visit

[@WilhelmKarsten]

A charming anecdote but no truth in it, Rolls-Royce and Rover were both nationalized at the time, the deal was made at the highest levels of the ministry. The ministry was unhappy with Whittles slow progress and Stanley Hooker and Adrian Lombard's refusal to work with Whittle after an ugly incident that revealed Whittle's substance abuse problems. Whittle, after week long drinking binge fueled by amphetamines and benzodiapines ended in Whittle assaulting a young Rolls-Royce engineer and brandishing a pistol during a meeting, he was arrested and sent off to drug rehab.

[@stephenpointon]

@@WilhelmKarsten Thanks , I had also heard that but I think most people prefer the snooker story as it hides the fact that people like whittle are often quite vulnerable people. Certainly Stanley hooker could also be quite a driven and determined man , his work on the Avon was legendary as well as his preference to work at the Rolls Royce factory in Barnoldswick or as it was nicknamed “hookers bloody shed” . I was blessed to work for RR for ten years and it was a great experience, a lot of very intelligent , brilliant engineers and it set me up for my career in engineering.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Funny how the British had a similar experience to the Germans in developing a jet aircraft - Lets go single body mounted engine - Nah! under powered, ok lets 2 engines ... on the wings .. Brill ! ..but eventually back to the future. But still missing a turret.. (ok, back in the van)

[@aldenconsolver3428]

Somebody must know how to do this but its not making sense to me, If the Nene engine produces 5000 lbs or force, how to convert this to horse power? If that jet engine is pushing a jet plane to a speed of ball park 600 mph it is going to need to make an equivalent horsepower in excess of 4000 (twin mustang or lightning etc ) but how can I get a better number than just in excess of ? the ME 262 engines made something like 3000 ftlbs of force, that should line up with something in the 3 to 5 thousand horsepower ball park for its performance. So what is the equation that aircraft people use?

[@aldenconsolver3428]

@Cancer McAids I bow before you, I have moved your explanation into my notes for safe keeping. Your inclusion of several examples makes you a better teacher than many I have met. One more question if I might, how might this work for say a Starship, the engines are producing 16,000,000 pounds of thrust, the composite rocket is just slightly subsonic at 700 mph, what is the horse power at that point and are there any changes from the calculation you demonstrated? I got 29.9 million horsepower assuming that the take off thrust stayed the same (at takeoff, setting on the pad it would appear that the horsepower is zero, which makes sense because work is force times distance. Also at what point do you intend to begin teaching aviation physics online? You already got one viewer.

[@derrickstorm6976]

I just googled "pounds of force to horsepower" and it made no sense, hah

[@aldenconsolver3428]

​@@derrickstorm6976 take a look up above, @Cancer McAids has a workable explanations.

[@aldenconsolver3428]

@Cancer McAids That's cool anyway, you have given me something to ground myself on, a real circumstance that means something I am familiar with. Now that I have that, I can get the rest from any reasonable source. I'm actually not that dumb, I just have never done anything in that particular field (I did teach a sophomore physics class once because the scheduled instructor got really sick, it was a totally miserable experience. The department head wanted me to just work sample problems (so the nasty little buggers could do all right on the MKATS) but I am a planetary scientist from the geology side of things and I am much more a look at it, think it through and then when you have a gut appreciation put in the math. Like you demonstrated I knew when I read it that yes, I had to put in the propellor slipstream effect that's something I can see. I have found NASA's student section and I am going to bite into it tomorrow am. This should also be fun since I am a pretty good programmer (hard to find a job as a planetary scientist in Kansas, so I programmed full-time and taught part-time) I might just make a little plug-and-chug program to calculate any kind of action-reaction arrangement which could even include relativistic velocities since those equations just reduce to the equations of motion at low speed. This should be fun. thanks again

[@sugarnads]

See gregs airplanes he did a vid on it

[@GaryJohnWalker1]

And of course Rover went on to make the gas turbine the engine of cars not just planes rather than those clackety piston engines. Oh wait ...

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Snap. 👍 Yes.

[@808bigisland]

Aloha, grew up next to the Swiss Venom base. A friends father was a Vampire/Venom pilot. His eyes glazed over whenever he talked about flying intercepts. Very noisy planes with a tarmac destroying exhaust and amazingly small turning cycles. During cold war I was assigned to this bases hardened underground command center..150 miles away from 30000 russian tanks and 4000 WP planes. We had maybe 50 Mirage and Hunter and F5 tiger interceptors and ca 100 british AA missiles in stock.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Yes that's why NATO had nukes. Small tactile and later neutron much radiation small destructive power. With German starfighters would have made NATO even weaker in air would you have won ?

[@KF99]

I looked on its initial tail configuration and thought it could have stability problems, because I had the same issue on one of my RC planes. And I was right.

[@glennpettersson9002]

If these early engines ran on kerosene I think the powers that be would have been very excited at the thought of higher performance on cheaper fuel.

[@scrumpydrinker]

They did

[@mikepette4422]

The Gloster Gormless ? Hmmmm I guess its a nice name lol

[@RobSchofield]

Shame - pretty little aircraft. Another great story!

[@consty715]

Ace or gormless! that’s exactly what people say about me😂

[@dennismason3740]

Bloke in a shed.

[@javiergilvidal1558]

0:25. See the hand! What kind of a sign is that????

[@felixtheswiss]

In Switzerland Gas turbines took another turn by using them for Power Generation. The first commercial unit was built in 1938 with Brown Boveri GT Neuenburg. That was operational until 2000! Then it became a Museumpiece. The ASME from the US recogniced it as a Landmark of engineering.

[@scrumpydrinker]

Yes, a brilliant piece of engineering, though I suspect it being just a tad to heavy for aircraft use.

[@felixtheswiss]

@@scrumpydrinker Yes of course but at the same time Escher Wyss built a variable pitch Propeller coming from Hydro Powerplant Turbines. Btw Switzerland took the turbine of a Me262 on the teststand in 1945. Because a German Pilot fled with the Me to Switzerland. Its the one in the " Deutsches Museum" in Munich.

[@richardvernon317]

Yes Gas Turbines existed for Ground use well before any of them flew in an aircraft.

[@allangibson8494]

The ABB unit first ran in July 1939.

[@jelkel25]

Yeees, Man in shed fuelled by giant brown teapot and his pipe regardless of there being flammables in said shed or not. A true corner stone of British innovation!

[@benhooper1956]

Ever since I discovered it a few years ago, I have loved the look of this thing. It does just look right

[@mpetersen6]

Nice to see you included the official Gloster production drawings for the Meteor 😁

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

I spent way to long trying to find something proper, and then gave up 🤷‍♂️

[@mpetersen6]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Where did you find them? Aeroplane Modeler or a cereal box

[@ModshackMerlin]

The E28/39 was also known as the Gloster Pioneer, a pioneer in the true sense of the word.

[@maxsmodels]

Another great video about a forgotten aircraft. In America we call that mid-T-tail design of the 2nd Ace a cruciform tail.

[@mblaber2000]

dig the filthy lab coats. Lots of work going on when the coats are filthy...

[@tomlobos2871]

wouldn't blame any design of that time period for not delivering as wished. things still had to be figured out on jet aircraft. like the P80 shooting star, not a great figther but a brilliant jet trainer.

[@mpetersen6]

The P-80 would have been great in 45. But the early jets, shall we say, aged rapidly.

[@tomlobos2871]

the arms race about jet engines just started then. early jets are good on fighting superprops but aigainst jets is another story. when germany fell, there was a growing fear the ussr could have gotten hands on technology or scientists they dont even think about. a reason why so much money and work was invested, though it was easy to drop a project in favour of a more promising. much try and error.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

I love Dinger's stuff - the drawings/paintings in particular. I finished a biography of Frank Whittle "Jet Man" last month, it's a decent read if you wish to know more, albeit I think it's rather gentle on Whittle and his way of working. Just my opinion of course!

[@jonsouth1545]

While slow and under-armed compared to jets like the Meteor if the E28/39 was still capable of 460+mph even on its first flight it did 350mph which for March 1941 was really good and faster than contemporary fighters like the Me109G. If this plane had been built 1 year earlier and i.e. just before the Battle of France while it certainly would not be in service by the Battle of Britain it is reasonable to suggest that early versions would have been available for home defense in early 1941 with the possibility of being used in the later parts of the Blitz etc and would have been very useful in home defense as well as allowing more spitfires and hurricanes to be sent overseas

[@1954shadow]

Is the hand on the “Power Jets” sign, giving “The Bird?”

[@mbryson2899]

Yep, I noticed the "undercover bird" as well.

[@rovercoupe7104]

@@mbryson2899No. The ‘bird’ wasn’t known in the UK until it appeared in the film ‘Top Gun’. M

[@mbryson2899]

@@rovercoupe7104 Did the Sex Pistols get a prerelease import version? In any case, I can't imagine quite a few not being left over by Americans stationed there during WWII.

[@eleventy-seven]

I bet it would outfly a F35. 😆😃😉😃😆

[@ianmcguinness5029]

Where are our Men in Sheds today?

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Nice clips. Post-war, Rover car company messed about with fitting turbine engines in cars, the one that looked like umm, P4 is it? Had rubbish acceleration since such engines to this day take ages to speed up, hence long takeoff runways. But really flew when up to engine speed.

[@timhancock6626]

Rover-BRM had two good finishes in the Le Man's 24 hours with a turbine car.

[@MattVF]

Austin stuck one in a Sheerline as well. I’m pretty sure that the Rover P6 was designed for a turbine…. But ended up with an in-line 4!

[@michaelmclachlan1650]

@@MattVF And a V8!

[@janvanhaaster2093]

5.10 - 5.16 "Gloster building Meteors in large numbers"....the picture showed however is Fokker building Gloster Meteor F Mk.8's in The Netherlands.

[@msgfrmdaactionman3000]

Awesome videos, thanks so much! @12:30 that Power Jets Office sign has the hand using the middle finger to point. Maybe some test bed humour? Lol.

[@shero113]

Great video about another almost unknown subject. Thanks!

[@wkelly3053]

1947. The F-86, axial flow engine, swept wings, and milled skins, had already flown.

[@kellyschram5486]

I'm sorry but was the us not operating jet in Italy before the end of the war.

[@terrystevens5261]

Not in combat.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

There were no effective Allied jet fighters in service during WW2, the P-80 was rushed into service far too soon and was unreliable with several fatal flaws, the Gloster Meatbox was an epic failure that only killed RAF pilots.

[@ajasont]

Ah yes, the era of extremely uninspired jet names.

[@Ob1sdarkside]

Rover missed one there.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Sweet looking plane

[@kyle857]

Can you imagine the world if freaking Rover was building our jet engines? God help us.

[@fooman2108]

Didn't Whittle's first run of the turbine overspeed/run-away and destroy itself?

[@rovercoupe7104]

They had trouble stopping it because there was fuel pooling in the engine. Not sure if it destroyed itself, but your are probably right.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Whittle's first prototypes did not have any combustor section, he literally injected fuel directly into a section of salvaged steam pipe. Swiss company _Brown, Boveri und Cie_ who manufactured gas turbine engines was brought in as a consultant and designed a cannular-type combustor for Whittle. Hans von Ohain and Max Hahnn built their first prototype in 1935 with an Annular combustor (the type used today on modern jet engines).

[@jimdavis8391]

Gloster seemed to lag behind further and further after the war. The later Javelin did not deliver on it's promise, a wing too thick, no area ruling and other aerodynamic crudities made it a lacklustre performer.

[@richardnicklin654]

… but supposedly great avionics.

[@englishpassport6590]

Although this much maligned aircraft had some stringent aerodynamic limitations the Gloster Javelin was a very underestimated aircraft in it's role as a bomber interceptor. This radar equipped delta wing fighter could also take on the best fighter opposition and regularly come out on top. The Gloster Javelin radically chewed up and bested many American 100 century series fighters in simulated NATO combat excersize situations with little loss to themselves. Many jet propelled aircraft were limited in their potential the jet pilots had to be highly proficient in their profession to make the most of them without killing themselves trying they earned their flight pay. The Javelin served as the inspiration behind the Tornado F 1 - 2 and 3 series fighter which was far more than a mere stopgap.

[@Julius_Hardware]

Gloster got the job of building Britain's first jets because their design office had plenty of spare capacity - because they hadn't designed a successful aircraft since the Gladiator. So Britain reinforced failure and gave the cutting edge to a company that knew how to build biplanes. The Meteor wasn't bad but wasn't great either, although it did have very good engines (albeit the dead-end centrifugal flow design). The Javelin was very poor aerodynamically as you say and redeemed only by excellent avionics for the time, which made a huge difference in its all-weather role. Waterton's struggles with Gloster illustrate the issues very well.

[@englishpassport6590]

@@Julius_Hardware The later production Javelin was superior to anything the Yanks could put together in the early fifties. For instance the supersonic dog the F100 was an aerodynamic bitch from day one. It was meat on the table for a well flown Javelin. The Yanks .. they think they won the war you know?

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Gloster was certainly the least likely to become Britains leader in jet aircraft technology... it was an open secret within the ministry that Gloster received the project based on nepotism and political corruption. Gloster had a well established reputation for building mediocre aircraft.