Who Invented the Jet Engine?

Unveil the thrilling saga of the race to conquer the skies with the invention of the jet engine! From Frank Whittle's perseverance to Hans von Ohain's unexpected success, witness aviation history unfold.
Love content? Check out our other KZbin Channels:
Higher Learning: / @higherlearningflight
Flick Facts: / @flickfacts
Fact Quikie: / @factquickie
Ancient Marvels: / @ancient-marvels
Origins: / @originsofeverything
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
www.youtube.co...

[@billbissenas2973]

I met Frank Whittle at the naval academy. I was an aerospace engineering major and he was a professor emeritus. He always seemed to have a smile on his face and was polite to a tee.

[@West_Coast_Mainline]

He was a legend

[@ukqwerty999]

How cool :)

[@grahamj9101]

I saw Sir Frank Whittle in person, just the once. I was at the back of the crowd and was able to see him over the heads of my colleagues, when he was guest-of-honour at the rededication ceremony of Whittle House at Rolls-Royce, Bristol. That event must have taken place in the late 1980s.

[@johnburns4017]

Hans von Ohain, the leading German jet engineer, wrote a very comprehensive foreword in the _'Elements of Propulsion, Gas turbines and Rockets'._ In that foreword he states: _"The first patent of a turbojet engine, which was later developed and produced, was that of_ *_Frank Whittle, now Sir Frank._* _His patent was applied for in January 1930. This patent shows a multistage, axial-flow compressor followed by a radial compressor stage, a combustor, an axial-flow turbine driving the compressor, and an exhaust nozzle. Such configurations are still used today..."_ and _"From the beginning of his jet propulsion activities, Frank Whittle had been seeking means for improving the propulsive efficiency of turbojet engines. He conceived novel ideas for which he filed a patent application in 1936, which can be called a bypass engine or turbofan. To avoid a complete new design, Whittle sought an interim solution that could be merely "tacked on" to a jet engine. This configuration was later known as the aft fan. Whittle's work on fan jets or bypass engines and aft fans was way ahead of his time. It was of greatest importance for the future or turbopropulsion."_ and _"In April 1937, Whittle had his bench-test jet engine ready for the first test run. It ran excellently; however, it ran out of control because liquid fuel had collected inside the engine and started to vaporize as the engine became hot, thereby adding uncontrolled fuel quantities to the combustion process. The problem was easily overcome._ *_This first test run was the world's first run of a bench-test jet engine operating with liquid fuel."._*

[@paulbriody297]

Enough said.

[@bobawatsit]

Maybe a patent, but that does not mean that Ohains design was after that of Whittles

[@johnburns4017]

@@bobawatsit Did you read what Ohain wrote?

[@bobawatsit]

' THE FIRST PATENT ' does that mean that Ohain and possibly others did not have a similar and better idea drawn up, ready to go ? @@johnburns4017

[@SAHBfan]

Careful, the anti British trolls who try to re-write history will not like that….

[@Dezzasheep]

The speed of development during that period was mind blowing. There was only 11 years between the first flight of the Lancaster and Vulcan bombers.

[@covertcounsellor6797]

I know. Isn’t it amazing, Dezza? It’s like the fact that the 787 Dreamliner I flew back from Shanghai a couple of years ago, flew barely faster than the DC-9 I flew in to Sydney in 1973. Amazing. As a kid, I would never have believed this.

[@Dezzasheep]

@@covertcounsellor6797 I suppose if you consider the retirement of concord, our commercial air travel is slower than 20 years ago!

[@covertcounsellor6797]

@@Dezzasheep Oh,it is. Yes there are less stops on longer routes such as Sydney London but the speed of travel hasn’t improved.

[@drstrangelove4998]

Yes! And not much longer for a man to land on the moon.

[@longsighted]

It is all about fuel efficiency now.

[@mg4695]

I was fortunate enough to have taken a class in aircraft propulsion from Dr. von Ohain in the mid 1980s. He was a wonderful instructor, a kind and gentle man. He was also very complimentary of "Sir Frank", as he called Whittle, saying that Whittle's initial design was "far superior" to his.

[@MrDaiseymay]

HE ALSO CONFESSED ON HIS DEATHBED, THAT THE NAZIS STOLE SIR FRANKS ORIGINAL DRAWINGS AND FILES, WHICH THE IDIOT BRITISH OFFICIALS FAILED TO GIVE A1 PROTECTION. RESULTING IN O HAIN AND CO, IMPROVING ON THE JET ENGINE, AND ENABLING THE LUFTWAFFE TO HAVE THE FIRST JET PLANE IN HISTORY, FLYING OVER A YEAR BEFORE OURS.

[@edmundsim6251]

Nintendo patents everything and they always win.

[@johnburns4017]

@@edmundsim6251 Where Nintendo around in the 1930s?

[@TarenGarond]

@@johnburns4017 Yes, founded in 1889.

[@michaelmayo3127]

"far superior" If Whitlle's engine was far superior, why was his engine design dumped in-favour of the German design, that is still used today?

[@brianpeterson5452]

I was a student of Hans Von Ohien who taught jet propulsion at the university of Florida. He was a humble man and very approachable. I still have the Pratt and Whitney pocket handbook that he gave all his students.

[@dogsbodyish8403]

Apparently he and Whittle became good friends.

[@Hurricayne92]

So i guess Von Ohien was a target of operation paperclip.

[@richardbell7678]

Jet engines surged into commercial service, because they were simpler and lighter. Despite their increased fuel consumption, the reduced weight of the early jet engines, relative to piston engines, allowed enough extra fuel to be carried that jet aircraft could fly further at the same take-off weight. The best illustration of Whittle's claim that competitive piston engines would become very complex is the Napier Nomad. The Napier Nomad achieved a thermal efficiency of 45%, running as a 2-stroke diesel with a compression ratio of only 3.5:1 and 89 psi of boost. To achieve its high fuel efficiency, it used a turbosupercharger with an eight stage axial flow compressor and three stage axial flow turbine. As the power of the turbine was well in excess of what was needed to drive the compressor, the turbosupercharger shaft was mechanically coupled to the crankshaft. From an airflow perspective, the Napier Nomad was a turboshaft engine with a piston engine replacing the combustion section.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

and some mechanics wanted to comit suicide when they had to maintain a 28cylinder piston engine, very understandableI think it was one of them who invented the Jet engine. a unsung hero!

[@davidelliott5843]

Rolls-Royce had various ideas for their Crecy sleeve valve two stroke. The engine never flew but RR calculated the exhaust thrust would add a 40% power gain to the crankshaft power. With an “augmenter” added they got a hybrid piston-jet engine.

[@miscbits6399]

and the Nomad achieved half its power from the turbine section with 3 moving parts Postwar jet engines consumed fuel like drunkards but they could produce more power in a smaller package that was 1/4 the weight and most importantly they didnt need the 100 or so manhours per engine per flight that big piston engines needed - and they were _reliable_ - it wasn't uncommon for 4 engined piston craft to end transoceanic/continental flights with a dead engine, leading to long turnarounds at each airport

[@JoeOvercoat]

Eight stages! 🤯

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

@@miscbits6399 I think that the Constellation was known to be a fine 3 engine plane!

[@adrian5783]

The Romanian Henri Coanda is the creator of the first jet aircraft in the world which he tried himself in 1910 at Issy-les-Moulineaux (France). The airplane was exhibited at the Aeronautical International Exhibition from Paris.

[@mdk-wc2sw]

Nope, what he built was some sort of Thermojet where the compressor was driven by a piston engine. Technically no real turbojet though.

[@michaelgrieacher7761]

​@@mdk-wc2swI'm no expert, but the question was who developed the first jet, not who developed the first turbojet

[@michaelmayo3127]

@@mdk-wc2sw The way in which fuel is compressed has nothing to do with the `reaction`, that's caused within the fuel combustion chamber when compressed fuel ignited, thus resulting trust. Basically a reaction engine is a compressor, a combustion chamber and a compressed fuel ignition system.Get those three components to work together, then you have a reaction engine; better know as a jet engine. And all jet engines are thermal engines. A steam engine, is no less a steam engine, just because it wasn't built by Watt.

[@mdk-wc2sw]

@@michaelmayo3127 Follwing your logic even a rocket engine using pressurized fuel/oxidator is a "jet" engine. Sort of true, but also not. Quote from wikipedia: A jet engine is a type of reaction engine, discharging a fast-moving jet of heated gas (usually air) that generates thrust by jet propulsion. While this broad definition may include rocket, water jet, and hybrid propulsion, the term jet engine typically refers to an internal combustion air-breathing jet engine such as a turbojet, turbofan, ramjet, pulse jet, or scramjet.

[@adrian5783]

@@mdk-wc2sw you are wrong. He built for a plane, what you can see in the Museum. Why we have to find explanation and reasons to change the facts?

[@VolkerGoller]

Think worth mentioning is that Ohain and Whittle became somewhat friends after the war.

[@peterdollins3610]

Frank Whittle patented the Jet Engine around 1930 before anyone else I'm aware of.

[@simonjackson7269]

There is a “memorial’ to the aircraft/engine at the gate of Farnborough Airport.

[@BigEightiesNewWave]

A decade AT LEAST before the Germans copied his design. This guy is clueless.

[@captiannemo1587]

Both developed it mostly independently of eachother.

[@peceed]

There are patents submitted before ww1.

[@KathrynLiz1]

Yes he did, but the RAF released the details and the Germans took advantage of it.

[@raymondmartin6737]

Being nearly 80 years old, i remember the British movie, in 1952, Breaking The Sound Barrier. 😊

[@patrickporter6536]

Me too, I screamed and cried after the fist crash and had to be taken home. 😂

[@grahamj9101]

Was that the film in which they came up with the idea of the control surfaces effectively reversing their functions in the transonic range (which was quite nonsensical)? However, my memory of 1952 is of the break-up in flight of the DH110 at the Farnborough Air Show, with John Derry, his observer, and 29 spectators losing their lives. I recall reading the papers and seeing the (edited) newsreel on TV. As a young designer at Rolls-Royce Industrial and Marine Division in the late 1960s, I was acquainted with a senior engineer who, as an Armstrong Siddeley apprentice, was a spectator at the show. He vividly recalled an Avon engine, with pipes flapping, flying low over his head, to plough into a group of Armstrong Whitworth apprentices, who were further up the hillside.

[@raymondmartin6737]

@grahamj9101 Thanks 😊 I think that's what they did in the movie, but I have not fully seen it for many years. Very good about aviation history such as the air show crash. When my wife and I were in the UK for two weeks in 2013, I think we passed near it on the tour bus going to visit Stonehenge. We also went to Oxford, Blenhem Castle, Curchill's home, and the Cotswolds too. We stayed in Earl's Court, went to the B&A museum, Diama's fountain in the park, Kensington Palace, and the air museum north in Herndon, plus many other sights. We flew Virgin Atlantic, upper class too. I was born on Welbeck St. In Saint Marble bone district of London in 1944, during WWII, living in Park West, near Edgware Rd above Marble Arch, which I first saw again in 1979 with my parents, and on our trip there. My parents came to London in 1939 from Zurich, Switzerland, where my Father met my Mother after he and my Uncle left Germany in 1937 to avoid the Nazi's coming to power, and they did not want to join the SA there. After the war, we came to New York City in February 1949, on the Queen Mary, and settled nearby, where I did start school in 1950 at age 6. I will be 80 in May this year. My wife just turned 81 on Valentines day. Also, in London, after the War, the RAF ace Douglas Bader lived in our building .

[@stevenclarke5606]

Yes I remember seeing it when I was at junior school another British Black and White classic

[@birmingben]

This is common knowledge, it was actually a man called Henry Jet, he was a hairdresser from Little Brington Northampton. In 1935 while at work in the solon Henry accidentally dropped a hairdryer on the floor, he bent down to pick up the hairdryer but it accelerated away from him at great speed, Henry was already well known in the village for creating the worlds first petrol operated hairdryer in commercial use, hence why the hairdryer shot across the floor at great speed when Henry dropped it. It was also on that day that the phrase "It shot off like a Jet engine" was invented as one of Henry's co-worker named Mavis shouted this now well known phrase when Henry dropped the highly modified hairdryer. That night Henry drew up plans for a bigger petrol powered Hairdryer but was interrupted by his good friend Ronald who just happened to live with him as a lodger and they totally didn't share the same bed, Ronald said to Henry as a joke "you should stick it on an aeroplane" Henry and Ronald would later die in a house fire that was said to have been caused by three small metal ball bearings about the size of a golf ball attached to a piece of string and were connected to the mains electricity for some reason, to this day no one knows what the strange invention was or what it was used for.

[@Grahamwain]

😊😊😊

[@carmium]

At the very end of the 50s, I'd seen plenty of TV footage of early US jets, their pilots climbing in, and the canopies dropping into place as the engine fired up. One day, Dad arrived home from a business trip to the east coast. "I got to fly in a jet!" he announced with satisfaction. All I could visualize was Dad, fedora on his head and briefcase in hand, squirming into the rear seat of a two-place fighter. To my credit, I decided at age 5 that the idea was nonsensical, but I had never seen a 707, which had only started commercial service in 1958, a year ahead of the DC-8. I finally saw one on a TV episode of something I probably didn't understand, but I finally knew what passenger jet looked like!

[@fukhue8226]

Hans von Ohain created the first German Jet Engine which was copied around the world and is basically the same today. Frank Whittle created the British jet engine. Franks type of Compressor used a different type of fan that worked OK on smaller engines but presented a problem the Germans didn't have with their design when scaling up the engine size. For Franks compressor design the fan had to get bigger in Diameter to pump more air. In the German version (similar to all jets today) you just had to stack more turbine blades in a row but the diameter did not have to get bigger, the German engine grew in length, not diameter. But let's give Frank the Award for the BIGGEST BALLS in Jet Engine development. In the early stages of testing Franks HUGE engine went into Run Away. All of the technicians ran out of the test area to get away from the impending explosion. Frank stayed behind, got the engine under control and saved the project. So Frank wins the BIG BALLS award for bravery under fire!

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

No jet engine designed by Hans von Ohain ever went into service and production. Ohain's designs were all had centrifugal flow elements the same as Whittle's engines, which of course did go into service. The distinction of often given between allied and German development is a false one since the Germans also developed centrifugal flow engines and the the British and Americans also developed axial flow engines.

[@TheAneewAony]

@@fritzwrangle-clouder6033 No, the British and Americans were unable to build a working axial-flow jet engine until after the war when they were able to examine German research. Hence the US Operation Paperclip, the British Operation Surgeon, and the Russian Operation Osoaviakhim. These programs enabled the rapid development of aerospace technology, for example the Moon landings.

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@TheAneewAony Hello Sandyboy. So Sandyboy, why have you invented yet another identity for yourself? That must be at least five different identities that you use. As you know Sandyboy, the British had the Metrovick F2 axial flow engine powering a Gloster Meteor about the skies in 1943. The F2 would continue to be developed through the war including with various experimental adaptions including an open rotor version. As you know, the Metrovick F2 would develope into the F9 Sapphire which would be produced under license in the US as the J65. Another WW2 British axial flow engine, the ASX would be developed int a turboshaft and also contribute to the Avon engine. As you know, post war experience of the Russians and the French showed the considerable weaknesses of German WW2 jet engine designs. With the Russians relegating german designs and adopting British Rolls Royce Nene engine. The French found that they had to completely redesign the German engine and adopt British Nimonic alloys to produce a serviceable engine several years after comparable British and American engines. As you know postwar, Anselm Franz the designer of the terrible ju 004 engine settled in America designing engines conforming to Whittle's 1930 patent. Sadly because of German wartime incompetence there has never been a successful German jet engine designed without foreign help.

[@TheAneewAony]

@@fritzwrangle-clouder6033 As you know the British lacked the technology to develop an axial-flow until after the war when they had access to German research, via Operation Surgeon. The RR Nene was an extremely simple centrifugal design, which was all the British could do at the time. The simple low tech design of the Nene was why the Russians could build it. Anytime I can help!

[@fritzwrangle-clouder6033]

@@TheAneewAony Hello Sandyboy. So Sandyboy, why have you invented yet another identity for yourself? That must be at least five different identities that you use. As you know, the British had several axial flow engines development during WW2 amongst them the Metrovick F2 which was superior to its German contemporaries and which went on to become the F9 Sapphire wich was adopted by the Americans and built under license as the J65. As you know, the Russians adopted the superior Roll Royce Nene for the famous MiG-15 after the failure of the BMW 003 they fitted to the MiG-9 and which engine proved hopelessly unreliable and flameout prone despite the best efforts of a host of German engineers. The Russians and their German engineers, as you are aware had a similarly disappointing experience with the ju 004 and had to relegate to second rate aircraft and trainers. Even Anselm Franz the designer of the ju 004 was wise enough to spend the rest of his career at Lycoming designing engines that conformed to Whittle's 1930 patent.

[@hillbilly4895]

For fun, I imagine Simon showing up unannounced at my funeral and giving my eulogy. The looks on peoples faces...priceless.

[@filippinoramb]

There was no fuel shortage for the Me262. Galland wanted more jets because plenty of jet fuel was available (kerosene, diesel), unlike gasoline for piston engines and most other things.

[@thelordofcringe]

It was, until it wasn't. They didn't scale up the jet fuel production properly and what they did do had inferior quality meaning much of it was rejected until being used out of desperation.

[@paulgush]

​@@thelordofcringea jet engine will burn almost anything. Gasoline, diesel, kerosene...

[@thelordofcringe]

@@paulgush yes it will. Just as a car can burn absolutely dogshit gas. Just because it CAN run something doesn't mean it SHOULD if you want to keep it working for long or working very well.

[@paulgush]

@@thelordofcringe gasoline has to be far more carefully refined than jet fuel. Otherwise a piston engine just won't run. Even more true for the ultra high compression ratios of engines used in WW2 airplanes

[@thelordofcringe]

@@paulgush I'm starting to think you have absolutely zero clue how the fuel was provided for these engines. You do realize fuel mix adjustments would have to vary greatly if you just threw in any fuel willynilly? Thats why they stuck to specific grades of aviation fuel. For example, the British swtiched to and refused to use below 100/130 octane aviation fuel to allow the Merlin engine peak performance during the Battle of Britain, much to the annoyance of the general who was coordinating fuel logistics at the time.

[@martinda7446]

To be clear Whittle patented the turbofan and re-heat in 1936. He was fully aware of all types of turbine engine but concentrated on the centrifugal compressor because of its simplicity and reliability for the sake of the war effort. He also worked on a supersonic engine for the Miles M52. He was a genius, no doubt.

[@johngalt2506]

P80s were deployed to Europe during the war, 2 to England and 2 to Italy but didn't see combat. British Meteors saw combat on the continent based out of Belgium running ground attack missions at the very end of the war.

[@leneanderthalien]

2 german jet bombers was shot down by Meteor in west germany close holland border

[@geldoncupi1]

Where do you get your info🤣🤣

[@johngalt2506]

@@geldoncupi1 This information is readily available in the RAF and USAF archives.

[@S_M_360]

Whittle is buried at Westminster Abbey, saw it myself in 2023, I vote him.

[@grahamj9101]

There. Is a memorial stone to Sir Frank Whittle in the Abbey, but it is not his last resting place. His ashes are interred at RAF Cranwell.

[@bsquared9]

Slight correction: axial flow compressors do not compress air as much as centrifugal ones (I.e. centrifugal can get to higher pressure ratios). This is why the first stages of some new jet engines still use them. Need to he more careful with the use of the word "efficient"

[@dogsbodyish8403]

That's not correct. The most sophisticated axial flow types offer far higher pressure ratios than the centrifugal type (but are EXTREMELY demanding in terms of execution). Whittle realised that, and it was case of avoiding the problem of trying to run before one could walk... But engine efficiency is very dependent on having a high pressure ratio - which is why modern fan engines have cutting-edge compressor implementations.

[@bsquared9]

@@dogsbodyish8403 agree with you, but as you correctly said it comes down to execution. I'm more familiar with turboprop engines and that is where centrifugal compressors still dominate in the latter stages (I.e. last stage of LP or HP). Mostly to reduce the number of stages and keep length of the engine and weight down.

[@PNH750]

I help staff a museum displaying examples of both 1945 axial and centrifugal compressor engine types of similar power outputs. The axial engine is half the length, a quarter of the frontal area and therefore pressumably lighter than the compressor motor. The difference in frontal area drag between the Meteor and Me 262 must have been significant. The accompanying engine information card also mentions that the axial engine development was dogged by turbine blade failures and problems due to the poor fuel available in Germany.

[@dogsbodyish8403]

@@PNH750 ... and compressor stall, due to less than perfect handling by the pilot.

[@EAcapuccino]

Frank Whittle is a name that rings a bell 😏 Sadly his innovation was ignored.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

I have held Whittle's _Power Jets Ltd._ test logs in my grubby paws (we scanned them all). All in his own hand, now at GE Aerospace's Learning Centre.

[@kennymackay4134]

no it wasn't.

[@dogsbodyish8403]

@@kennymackay4134 Well, it was rejected until eventually accepted.

[@Brian-om2hh]

It wasn't ignored, it was known about by some, but was denied sufficient funding until later in it's development....

[@j4s0n39]

The age of piston driven aircraft is far from over. The majority of airplanes active today are piston driven. Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft each have tens of thousands of models still active today. And new manufacturers like Diamond and Cirrus are using 21st century composites and CFD to create new piston driven airplanes.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

It is over, those piddly little prop driven craft don't rate a mention in the scheme of things.

[@j4s0n39]

@@anthonyxuereb792 You can pretend they don't exist, for whatever insane reason you choose, but the top four most produced aircraft still in production are all piston driven. And their numbers are massive. Go to any class D or smaller airport, and you'll see them everywhere. They're more cost effective for taking a few people around.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

I don't pretend they don't exist nor am I insane for thinking so and no matter how massive their numbers are, there are also massive numbers of commercial, military and general aviation jets to make small prop driven planes minor players.@@j4s0n39

[@dogsbodyish8403]

Depends on how fast you want to go - and how high you want to go.

[@thundermite1241]

The xf-84h thunderscreech is a perfect example of propellers being loud at higher speeds

[@KOZMOuvBORG]

As was the Soviet Tu-95, with 32 propellor blades breaking sonic. Never mind its crew, NORAD jets who intercepted them complained about how noisy they were.

[@neillopez5458]

I think that you had better research victor schauburger and his Trout jet engine patents. An mazing inventor who was crushed by the 3 reich and possibly the americans post war

[@ianmcsherry5254]

Weird that US engineers found that they had to adapt their tools to the metric system. I was under the impression that we in Britain didn't adopt that until decades later. We were using Imperial measurements.

[@longsighted]

Britain at that time used Whitworth sizes are unlike the USA with the AF range. Still would need adjustment, so l guess the Yanks thought it was Metric.

[@TheChannelWithNoReason]

@@longsighted it’s 2024 and you people are still using the word yanks.

[@drewlovely2668]

​@@TheChannelWithNoReasondoes it really matter that much?

[@jeromethiel4323]

@@TheChannelWithNoReason The Brits can use Yanks as long as they like, as far as i am concerned. ^-^

[@TheChannelWithNoReason]

@@drewlovely2668 I mean, if you don’t mind sounding completely ridiculous, then sure by all means continue saying it. Don’t forget to pick up your musket and throw on your redcoat before setting sale to the New World colony. I particularly enjoy meeting, new lobsters. Lobsters are too an outdated description of British people during the revolutionary war. Most Americans just prefer being called Americans.

[@clive373]

Eric Brown, said he interviewed ohain at the end of war, and was told Whittle's patent had been his inspiration.

[@Completeaerogeek]

in 1935, Ohain had been given a copy of Whittle's patents by his lawyer, while his own patent application being prepared and before he had begun construction of an engine. In his biography, Ohain frankly critiqued Whittle's design:[31] "When I saw Whittle's patent I was almost convinced that it had something to do with boundary layer suction combinations. It had a two-flow, dual entrance flow radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after although it gave some minor instability problems ... Our patent claims had to be narrowed in comparison to Whittle's because Whittle showed certain things." He then somewhat understandably justified their knowledge of Whittle's work by saying: "We felt that it looked like a patent of an idea ... We thought that it was not seriously being worked on."

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

👍Nice concise history and well presented, thank you.

[@EuropaSman]

I'm not sure that the commentary at 5:10 is correct about Moss inventing a 2 stage turbo charger. To the best of my knowledge, turbos have a single compressor and turbine (as per the picture of a cutaway of a turbo copied from Wikipedia). Conventional mechanically driven superchargers on the other hand, can have 2 compressors stages, as used on piston engines such as the Rolls Royce Merlin 61. Furthermore, Alfred Buchi patented a design for a turbocharger in 1905 and is seen as "the father" of the turbo. My understanding is that Moss perfected it to a point whereby it could be reliably used in aircraft.

[@Paratus7]

According to the BBC it was a woman from Jamaica who came to England on the SS Windrush. In between rebuilding England after the war and inventing antibiotics she found time to invent the jet engine.

[@mikebellis5713]

Hilarious

[@wolfmon9]

Quality 😂

[@briancarton1804]

She also invented water having extracted from whisky.

[@sgassocsg]

Hilarious. Keep up the good humor my friend. We love the BBC irony.

[@kenjifox4264]

She also single-handedly wrote the yellow pages.

[@paulgush]

Decent, but some corrections and clarifications are in order. 1. It wasnt just the propeller that was at its limit in the early 40s, it was the piston engine too, which struggled to make 2000 HP reliably. 2. Von Ohain used hydrogen becuase it is easier to burn, since its flame front moves faster than that of kerosene. Switching to kerosene as a fuel had no effect on lowering combustor temperature, but was done as being vastly more dense, is a much more practical fuel than H2. 3. Axial compressors of the day were not more efficient per se, but they did have the advantage of being smaller in frontal area, and so caused less drag.

[@bat__bat]

Surely they had impeller boat engines. The concept wasn't exactly foreign, but coming up with a way to compress the air, mix with fuel, and ignite was the tricky part. And not burning the thing up was a challenge too.

[@Notyourphone01]

What does an impeller boat drive have to do with a jet engine. I'm pretty sure they knew what happened when you stuck a fan in a tube. It was the fact of driving that fan with the incoming air that was lost on them at the time. It wasn't until they started driving turbines with exhaust gas on engines that people really started to make the connection A turbocharger is really just a disconnected jet engine

[@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus]

Marine water jet propulsion didn't start until the 1950s.

[@waynec3563]

@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus Maybe he is talking about steam turbines. The first steam turbine ship was the Turbina, launched in 1894.

[@miscbits6399]

Early gas turbine designs were firmly based on steam turbines, which was part of the reason for them being so heavy (they ended up being used for stationary power systems with rotational speeds to suit)

[@miscbits6399]

Britannica says that the first axial-flow gas turbine was made in 1903 and developed 11hp, but the first commercial implementations were made by Brown-Boveri in Switzerland in the 1920s. These designs used a form of recuperation to generate steam and extract additional work from the energy - important for power generation but made them HEAVY

[@petel4119]

17:56 The Meteor didn't get anywhere near 970km/h (606mph) during WW2 - this was a speed record set 6 months after the war in a stripped down aircraft.

[@hoverhead047]

I don't think the British were working jn metric during the 1940s. Would it have not been that the standard was Whitworth not SAE?

[@AdamosDad]

Lockheed J37 In 1930, Nathan C. Price joined Doble Steam Motors, a manufacturer of steam engines for cars and other uses. Over the next few years he worked on a number of projects and starting in autumn 1933 began working on a steam turbine for aircraft use. The engine featured a centrifugal compressor that fed air to a combustion chamber, which in turn fed steam into a turbine before exiting through a nozzle, powering the compressor and a propeller. The engine was fitted to a test aircraft in early 1934, where it demonstrated performance on par with existing piston engines except for difficulty maintaining power at higher altitudes due to the compressor. Work on the design ended in 1936 after Doble found little interest in the design from aircraft manufacturers or the Army. Price started work on his own turbojet design in 1938, although this initial design was far more complex than what eventually emerged as the J37. In an effort to keep the fuel efficiency of the engine similar to existing piston engine, Price used a combination of low-compression axial compressor stages feeding a high-compression reciprocating compressor. In 1941 he was hired by Lockheed to evaluate the General Electric superchargers being fit to the experimental XP-49, a high-altitude version of their famous P-38. By this time Price had the basic design of his jet completed and was able to attract the interest of Lockheed's Chief Research Engineer, Kelly Johnson, who would later found the company's famous Skunk Works. Johnson had been thinking about a new high-speed design after running into various compressibility problems at high speed with the P-38 and the jet engine seemed like a natural fit in this project. During 1941 he ordered the development of a new aircraft to be powered by Price's engine, developing the engine as the L-1000 and the aircraft as the Lockheed L-133. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_J37

[@Completeaerogeek]

Whittle patented and built and ran teh world's first self sustaining gas turbine engine in April 1937, 6 months before Von Ohain. Whittle's 'reverse flow design is one of the most common gas turbine engines in the world today, as the Allison 250 and P&W PT-6. His engines flew in the F9/40 and Gloster Meteor and developed into the W2-700 which became the RR Nene and Derwent. These powered not only British aircraft but many US post war jet aircraft (P&W J-42 and J-48) as well as those of other countries including the Russian MiG 16/17 (not his fault) . He also created and flew the world's first turboprop the RR Trent. Whittle's 'reverse flow design is one of the most common gas turbine engines in the world today as the Allison 250 and P&W PT-6. His engines flew in the F9/40 and Gloster Meteor and developed into the W2-700 which became the RR Nene and Derwent. These powered many US post war jet aircraft (P&W J-42 and J-48) as well as those of other countries including the Russian MiG 16/17 (not his fault) . He also created and flew the world's first turboprop the RR Trent. Here is what Hans von Ohain said about reading Whittle's patent in 1935, before he had even started designing his first engine: "When I saw Whittle's patent I was almost convinced that it had something to do with boundary layer suction combinations. It had a two-flow, dual entrance flow radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after although it gave some minor instability problems ... Our patent claims had to be narrowed in comparison to Whittle's because Whittle showed certain things." He then somewhat understandably justified their knowledge of Whittle's work by saying: "We felt that it looked like a patent of an idea ... We thought that it was not seriously being worked on." It's in his biography... Reading is amazing...

[@stephencaparelli7733]

ohain had whittles patent papers in hand when he was developing his engine, WHO WAS FIRST?

[@jamesturner2126]

5:15 According to NACA Report 384, turbochargers do not run on wasted energy. Turbines are essentially wings mounted to an axle, when a pressure differential is applied to the wings, the axle spins. To create this pressure differential, a piston engine's crankshaft forces gases out of its cylinders, instead of the gases merely flowing out, and pressure is the opposite of flow. This laborious process of pressurizing exhaust gases can be felt as "turbo lag," as the crankshaft struggles to create the pressure diffential to drive the turbine of the turbocharger. On aircraft with separate throttle and boost controls, manuals say to advance the throttle lever FIRST, then advance the boost lever, so there isn't a noticeable drop in engine performance.

[@greggweber9967]

It's unnecessary for the winning side, but it is necessary if you're losing. They will realize that in 1944.

[@michaelshore2300]

I lived in Germany 1990-2017 and about 2000 there was a Program on ZDF about jet engines. There . von Ohain's assistant stated that they had made no progress until they were given a copy of Frank Whittle's patent by the German Air Ministry

[@longsighted]

This story lacks the second and axial flow compressor jet engine developed and made by Metropolitan Vickers at Trafford Park Manchester a sister company to BTH. Started in 1937 by order of the air ministry and secret to Whittle as Whittle was firmly attached to the centrifugal compressor, the engine first flew in a meteor in 1943. It went on to be the father of UK jet engine design after the war, MetroVick was forced to sell the engine to Armstrong Whitley in 1947 as part of a rationalisation of the UK aircraft industry and became the Sapphire which first powered the prototype UK Canberra and Lightening before the RR Avon was ready. A licence was sold to the USA and developments powered the USA version of the Canberra and the first batches of the the A4 Skyhawk.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

It doesn't count, the Germans were first and that's all there is to it.

[@mandernachluca3774]

@@anthonyxuereb792 If we go with that, then Whittle was the the first the develope a flight worthy jet engine "AnD tHaT's ThE onLy tHiNg ThaT cOuNts". There was acumulative effort that brought the uprise of the jet engine and it is true, that the germans had some pretty groundbreaking ideas, like active blade and vane cooling or protective coatings for turbine blades, or regenerative shaft turbines for application in vehicles, or bypass jet engines, or even the now dead counterrotating shaft turbines. However, other nations also did major contributions, thought, these were mostly after WW2.

[@anthonyxuereb792]

Appreciate your reply and have no issues with what you say. Those counter rotating turboshaft engines might be dead but what there is are still giving stirling service in the big Russian Tu-95@@mandernachluca3774

[@zaphodbeeblebrox5973]

@@mandernachluca3774 Actually Alan Griffith's work at MetroVic started with a turboprop, the F1, the F2 was initially drawn up with a contrarotating axial flow compressor but simplified and only the two stage turbine section remained. I don't think any production 004 could be considered realistically 'flight worthy'!

[@dogsbodyish8403]

@@anthonyxuereb792 Their axial compressors killed a lot of pilots - making their engines tricky to control. Which is why Whittle's experimental prototypes and initial production used the more forgiving centrifugal type.

[@davidchamberlain5425]

Frank Whittle👍...1907---1996.🙏🙏👍

[@greg0063]

High pressure air? More like high volume and speed to turn the turbine. Also the turbine extracts more than 60% of the amount of power produced to turn the compressor. So not a small amount by any means.

[@mandernachluca3774]

That's true, but that also means, that around 30 to 40% of the energy is used to excellerate the vehicle. The is on par with modern piston ICE engines and these percentages not include bypass turbines high efficiency shaft turbines, wich can get up to 50% efficiency on there own and up to 60% (so very close to the uper theoretical thermodynamic limit) when used in series with a Rankine cycle (like one would find in a gas turbine power plant).

[@Suddenly-Eggs]

Having "bad eyes", became some the best pilots or great designers ever.

[@johnbrereton5229]

Frank Whittle invented the jet engine and was the first to run a working model of it on the bench. However, his plans were published in a German magazine called Das Flugel and and an engine was built using Whittles plans there and put into a plane that actualy flew first. Whittle finally recieved funding and so could then fit his engine into a plane and the Glouster Meteor was the result. Therefore, Whittle invented and patented the engine first, and built the first working model, though the Germans built the first jet powered plane.

[@woods457]

And Rudolph Diesel never invented the diesel engine either, i believe the compression ignition engine was designed and patented by an Englishman called Herbert Akroyd Stuart, but Rudolph Diesel ran with the idea and perfected it..

[@dogsbodyish8403]

His first jet plane was the experimental Gloster (not to be confused with the city of Gloucester) snappily-named E28/39. His first production engines were fitted to the Gloster Meteor a bit later.

[@leifvejby8023]

Whittle wasn't the first to build a working jet engine, that honour goes to Ægidius Elling for his 1905 contraption.

[@angrydoggy9170]

So basic British engineering prowess. Float an idea, build a slightly working thing and have the Germans turn it into an effective tool.

[@dogsbodyish8403]

@@angrydoggy9170 Well, nearly true - Whittle didn't just "float an idea". When the War Office (MoD's predecessor) declined to support him, he patented the invention and formed his own company to develop it. Which was never properly funded, but produced working prototypes nevertheless. Meanwhile, the Germans saw the patent, and ran with it. The Germans would have been better advised to adopt the simpler centrifugal compressor, as axial compressors are far more difficult to build and control, and represented a major weakness in their implementations.

[@LoriDitchfield]

Half of my family worked at that Lynn GE turbine facility.

[@johndoyle4723]

Who invented the Jet engine? Sir Frank Whittle without doubt. Well I would say that as I am British, but thanks for the video and the amazing speed of development by Germany and UK.

[@Schlipperschlopper]

Mr Coanda from Romania did

[@SAHBfan]

@@Schlipperschlopper- I thought it was Hero in 500 BC. 🤡

[@Schlipperschlopper]

Coanda was a very innovative aerodynamician of WW1 he invented a ultra modern fighter monoplane with an Impeller propulsion during WW1 when in Germany they still built rotary engines and triplanes he was the first@@SAHBfan

[@cujet]

It is interesting to note that the Turbomeca Arrius engines in our helicopter use a single stage, centrifugal compressor. The pressure rise is impressive, as is the shape and configuration of the compressor. Makes for a very lightweight, compact and powerful engine. The benefits of avoiding a more efficient, but much larger and complex axial compressor are many. It must be remembered that compressor efficiency is just one small part of overall engine efficiency. Here, the centrifugal was the right choice.

[@johanjanssens4530]

HENRI COANDA invented the jet engine !

[@richvandervecken3954]

Great video, I discovered a while back that both the British and American Engineers had their own Jet aircraft development programs that were not far behind the German ones during the war. I wish this was taught as part of standard history so that the general public stops believing the Nazi's were far more technologically advanced than the allies! If you would have specified what type of compressors these early jet aircraft used it would have further shown the development that has occurred. That Jet engine the British gave to General Electric was based on a centrifugal compressor design. The J30 independently developed by Westinghouse in 1942 was an axial-flow compressor design. The Heinkal (He178) used a centrifugal compressor design in 1939 however the Messerschmitt Me 262 used an axial flow compressor design in their production models of 1944.

[@tonytiger2914]

Nazi Germany invented modern world, not you Americans. Btw Herr Hitler wants his 100 tons os top secret documents you stole back

[@dogsbodyish8403]

Whittle was fully aware of the limitations of the centrifugal compressor, but realised that its use would be too ambitious in the early stages of jet engine development. In fact, he was 100% correct - the Me262's axial compressors were the reason for their engines' propensity for surging and stalling (which killed quite a few pilots).

[@azzajames7661]

Frank Whittle. Whittle, who registered a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930.

[@sweetpeaz61]

You say the brits developing the jet with the merkins had problems because the spanner sizes were metric??? i dont think so.the Brits were Whitworth and BSF standard and the USA were UNC and UNF standard AF (across flats) sizes ..the germans used metric...

[@PNH750]

I think the top speed of the Meteor was a bit less than the 970kph quoted at time point 17.55. The Mk 1 Meteor was reported to only have a top speed of just over 420mph and was much slower than the ME262. The first of the Mk 3 Meteors were faster than a Hawker Tempest but could not reach 600mph until fitted with more powerful engines after the war had ended.

[@Completeaerogeek]

The Derwent Meteor F3 had a top speed of 500pph. Not much behind the 252 at 535 but the Meteor was faster at sea level, it was also a better fighter, much more maneuverable with better guns for a fighter. The Meteor F4 flew in May 1945 and with 3,500lb Derwents, was capable of 600mph in service trim.

[@Completeaerogeek]

Von Ohain states in his biography, ( Elegance in flight by Margaret Conner) that "My interest in jet propulsion began in the fall of 1933 when I was in my seventh semester at Göttingen University. I didn't know that many people before me had the same thought. (Whittle;s patent was granted 3 years earlier in 1930) As further related in his biography , "In 1935 while doing preparatory research for Ohain's patent application ,(and long before Ohain designed an engine) Ohain's lawyer came across Whittle's patents and in his own words, Ohain frankly critiqued Whittle's design: "When I saw Whittle's patent I was almost convinced that it had something to do with boundary layer suction combinations. It had a two-flow, dual entrance flow radial flow compressor that looked monstrous from an engine point of view. Its flow reversal looked to us to be an undesirable thing, but it turned out that it wasn't so bad after although it gave some minor instability problems ... Our patent claims had to be narrowed in comparison to Whittle's because Whittle showed certain things." He then somewhat understandably justified their knowledge of Whittle's work by saying: "We felt that it looked like a patent of an idea ... We thought that it was not seriously being worked on."

[@williamlloyd3769]

What’s with background tones? Distracting

[@jayhafe]

I’m not saying it was aliens. But I’m not saying it wasn’t aliens either. 😊

[@christopherpotts5681]

I’m using this 😂

[@Hillbilly001]

It was the Lizard Overlords at work again. They want everyone to fly on jets so they can turn off the power and take over more easily. Allegedly. Cheers

[@camdenharper7244]

Where you there? You don't know?!?😂

[@AnotherPointOfView944]

Invading your house?

[@BigDaddy-nf5qh]

There are theory the nazis managed to contact them and made an agreement for alien tect

[@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo]

The video title does not specify *turbojet* engines. The first jet engine (ramjet) for use in aircraft was patented by Frenchman René Lorin in 1908. During the second International Aeronautical Exhibition held in Paris, Henri Coandă of Romania displayed the world’s first jet-propelled (primitive ducted fan) aircraft, the Henri Coandă-1910.During engine tests it did lift off accidently with Coandă who couldn't fly, and then crash-landed with severe damages to the airplane, Coandă managed to escape without serious injury. In 1930, German Paul Schmidt filed the patent for the pulse-jet engine which later would be mass-produced for the V-1. The first useful gas turbine was invented by Aegidus Elling of Norway in 1912. The first patent for using a gas turbine to power an aircraft ('turbojet') was filed in 1921 by Frenchman Maxime Guillaume. German Hans von Ohein developed the first working turbojet engine, the HeS 1, in March 1937. The first turbojet-equipped aircraft to fly was the Heinkel He 178 in Aug, 1939.

[@andrewmorton9327]

According to Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown, the useful life of the German Junkers Jumo jet engine in squadron service was 12 hours after which it had to be scrapped. Whittle’s engine in squadron service could run for 100 hours before servicing was required.

[@laurencehoffelder1579]

While that is true it is only half the story. The Germans at the time of the introduction of the jet engine had resource scarcity which included nickel alloys which are high temperature (high stress) alloys that are needed for turbine application. The UK didn't have these kind of scarcitys. How the Jumo 004 would have performed had it been build with nickel alloys in the turbine we simply don't know.

[@andrewmorton9327]

The point is that for the Germans it would have been better if they had used the Whittle design, their own design being too advanced for the available materials.

[@laurencehoffelder1579]

@@andrewmorton9327 well yes an no. Von Ohain also designed his engines to be more material efficient. However the layout of the Jumo 004 is easier to build in large scale (an potentially by untrained labor force). There had of course also been some politicing going on as it always had in the aero industry of the 3rd reich. Tbh you always hear of such miracle concepts but I am always sceptical with such. I myself hadn't had the time yet to evaluate myself tbh.

[@greggougeon4422]

After the war the Russian built exact copys of the 004. Only using proper materials that the Germans did not have the engines lasted much longer i can't remember how much longer though i read about it a while ago. But the short lifespan of tge 004nwas due to material shortages not flawed designs.

[@miscbits6399]

Whittle patented and developed axial engines (ut's where the Germans got the inspiration for them), however they weren't used during the war because they weren't reliable enough yet - having lifespans not much longer than the German ones and higher fuel consumption/ lower power than the axial engines until compressor tolerances were improved in the 1950s. What _really_ drove postwar axial engine development was the need for supersonic flight. Radial compressor engines were limited to tbe speed of sound

[@searcaig]

Nice summary The photo of the Gloster Meteor at 11'45" should be deleted though as the subsequent photo is the one referred to in the narrative

[@jonathanbarrett1708]

I knew that Frank Whittle invented the jet engine by the time I was about 13 from physics lessons so I don’t have to watch the video 😂

[@leifvejby8023]

He didn't, try googling Ægidius Elling jet turbine. Elling had a running turbine in 1905.

[@Cornell851]

I knew this as a kid.. Spent many weekends in the Jet and Whittle pub with the old man 😂 great days ❤

[@iggyzorro2406]

hint: if this guy talks too fast for you, got to youtube settings and change playback speed to .75. It makes him sound like a normal narrator/presenter.

[@terrymason8628]

When Britain was obliged to hand over its jet technology to our US allies as part of paying off some of our War Debt, GE not only got blueprints and technology, they also got Frank Whittle's Mayfair house, close to old US Embassy. My old GE office was just across the road.

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

RAF officer needed to understand lbs thrust compared to Merlin HP and propeller. It turns out that the first experimental jet engine produced more thrust than the highest power, latest technology Piston engine.

[@gordonbott7563]

I read about this in Stanley Hooker's autobiography He was trying to convince Lord Hives head of Rolls Royce that jet engines were to future for aeroplane engine propulsion He had calculated that the thrust from a 1000hp Merlin driving a propeller was 840 lbs and that the thrust from Whittles first primitive prototype was 800. Hives was convinced and RR gave full cooperation to Whittle and created their own jet engine division

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

@@gordonbott7563 Not just an engineer. Excellent book.

[@phillyphil1513]

19:41 - if you're in 'Murica and perhaps want to see the GE J31 (a copy of the Whittle engine with it's Siamese Compressor/Axle Turbine configuration) a cut-away is on display at the National Air Force Museum located on Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton Ohio. i was just there in December photographing it (also the newly added Sukoi Su-27). for those unfamiliar WPAFB is where Von Ohain worked as a Research Scientist when he first came to the States in 1947, whereas Werner Von Braun and his "rocket tech" (ref the V2) first went to Massachusetts in late 1945. Braun and a team other German Scientist defectors were eventually relocated down to Redstone Arsenal in Alabama circa 1950. building on the earlier work of Robert Goddard (who passed in August 1945 at age 63) the rest of Von Braun story you know by the now famous acronym "NASA".

[@Jolfgard]

the question is: Did the inventor know, that the combustion reaction in their engines could reach temperatures that were able to melt steel beams?

[@thisbelindaangel2841]

?

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Apparently jet beams can't fuel steel burning melt?

[@MARKETMAN6789]

Leonardi Devinci,,He had an old workshop underneath his art studio ,where he invented metal engines , He kept it a secret because he wanted to invent a plane ,and he couldn't make up his mind wether it should have two wings and a tale ,or four wings and two tales

[@industrialmonk]

I like you video's as thay nearly always suprise me by actually creating people who actually did things & not taking the usual USA attitude that everything was invented by the USA & if thay can't take credit then it wasn't invented.

[@Joker-no1uh]

This makes zero sense. What did someone invent that the US said didn't exist? They could just show it.

[@jeffslade1892]

The Me-262 was not cleared for operational service until August 1944 although it had been used for test, development and training since April. Whereas the Meteor had been cleared for operational squadron service on 17 July 1944 although that too had been flown since the January. That does rather make the Meteor the first fighter rather than prototype into the air.

[@theluckyegg3613]

The ME262 was the first that was "mass produced".

[@jeffslade1892]

@@theluckyegg3613 the Meteor was mass produced too. Originally 300 F.1 were ordered but this quickly progressed into other updated models even before they were sent to squadron in July 1944. The Me-262 needed more spares because the engines had to be practically rebuilt after each flight.

[@theluckyegg3613]

@@jeffslade1892 ME262 April 1944 Meteor July 1944 At least here the German Luftwaffe won. 😊

[@jeffslade1892]

@@theluckyegg3613 Cleared for squadron - Me262 August 1944, Meteor July 1944. Test flights and training on production models - Me262 April 1944, Meteor January 1944

[@TheAneewAony]

@@jeffslade1892 The Meteor never became combat operational, hence it was never used in combat. It was deemed too slow to deal with the German jets. Eric Brown: "Speed. Speed. It was a pedestrian aircraft, really, the Meteor. It never went into… It never fought operationally. It fought, if you like to call it that, against the V1, the flying doodlebug, and quite successfully. But it really was too slow to deal with the German jets when they came into being. They were a grade above at first. The Me262 is quite frightening. It gave us a shock to find out, because when I flew it the fastest fighter we had - piston fighter, of course - in the Allied camp was the Seafire Mk14 with a top speed of 446mph. The Me262 was 125mph faster than that aircraft. So this was a rude shock to our system, I tell you, when we found that out."

[@_SimpleJack_]

The Netflix documentary have it being invented by a black woman.

[@Ubique2927]

Black, trans, dwarf.

[@Tim091]

Lesbian and in a wheelchair?

[@vicentenevarez1754]

The Nazis

[@sithdoestat4432]

Nope, Frank Whitle

[@vicentenevarez1754]

@@sithdoestat4432 Chris Hanson

[@sithdoestat4432]

@@vicentenevarez1754 nope, sir frank whittle

[@axiomshift4666]

Nazis had first operational jet fighter. But not first jet necessarilly. Was a bunch of programs going on at the same time so it is muddled.

[@ryhold]

There is no way he would ever say anything positive about Germany. 😂

[@grahamj9101]

Following my previous comment about errors and omissions, here is the list that I’ve compiled over the past week or so. At around 4:27, you describe the jet engine combustion chamber as producing “a hot, high pressure exhaust”, which is misleading. The fact that many people can’t get their heads around is that, unlike the piston engine, there is no pressure increase in the combustion chamber of a jet engine: there is actually a small pressure loss. At around 4:37, you state that “the turbine extracts a small amount of energy”. In fact, it extracts a large amount of energy to power the compression process in compressor: however, this is effectively recycled during the expansion process in the turbine. At around 5:10, you state that, in 1918, Dr Stanford Moss at GE invented “a two-stage turbine called a turbo-supercharger”. The photo you show is of a typical turbocharger with a single-stage centrifugal compressor and a single-stage centripetal turbine. At around 5:25, you could have mentioned that, in 1921, Maxime Guillaume, a Belgian agricultural engineer, was granted a French patent for a jet engine. The diagram in his patent shows a very rudimentary axial flow jet engine. He described the basic principles, but they were not supported by appropriate analysis and calculations. Nevertheless, I have heard Ian Whittle, during lectures on his father’s life and work, suggest that Guillaume could have a claim to be the inventor of the modern jet engine. At around 10:12, while describing the WU engine in its original form in 1937, with a single combustion chamber, you show a photo of it after its second rebuild in 1939, with ten combustion chambers: this is often referred to as the WU3. Then, at around 11:40, you discuss the Gloster E.28/39, but show a photo of the Gloster Meteor: this is followed by a photo of the E.28/39. At around 13:25, you suggest that von Ohain’s HeS 1 engine “ran well” on Hydrogen, and the diagram of the HeS 1 states that it was tested on Hydrogen in April 1937. However, Ernst Heinkel contradicted these dates: he recorded that the engine did not run on Hydrogen until around September 1937, and on liquid fuel six months later. Von Ohain himself is recorded as stating that he and Hahn “had to work night and day” to get their combustion system to work. You omitted to mention the von Ohain/Max Hahn ‘garage engine’ of 1935. This was made of sheet metal, and was never going to work. Nevertheless, it was motored over and fuel was injected, most of which burned as a sheet of flame out of the exhaust. Incidentally, there are contradictions in the nomenclature given to von Ohain’s engines. The ‘garage engine’ is sometimes referred to as the HeS 1 and the next engine as the HeS 2. In August 1939, the He 178 was certainly the first jet aircraft to fly, powered by a jet engine, which we would today call a turbojet. However, the HeS 3B engine would not have been considered airworthy by the UK authorities. At around 14:39, you state that, after a six-minute flight, Erich Warsitz, the pilot, “cut out the jet unit”. He had to do so, to avoid the engine overheating and burning out. At around 15:10, you suggest that a mechanical fault forced Warsitz to fly with his landing gear extended. There was no mechanical fault: the landing gear was fixed, with the wheel wells faired over. Photographs of the aircraft in flight show this. You state that a maximum speed of 598 Km/hr ((373 miles/hr) was achieved during the first flight of the He 178. In a flight of only six minutes, with the landing gear extended and at low altitude, I have my doubts. The landing gear would have acted as a pair of massive air brakes, hanging below the fuselage, which would tend to result in a ‘pitch down’. This would have had to be counteracted by ‘up elevator’ and an increased angle of attack, with the aircraft in a high drag condition. At around 15:45, you mention the “more efficient axial flow compressor” of the Jumo 004 engine. In fact, the axial flow compressors of the German engines that were in service in 1944, were slightly less efficient than Whittle’s centrifugal compressor of 1937-39. The axial flow compressor needed years more development and, in 1943, the Royal Aircraft Establishment, in conjunction with Metropolitan Vickers, already had an axial flow compressor that was more efficient than the German compressors. Comparing the Jumo 04B engine of 1944 with the Welland (Rolls-Royce’s version of the Whittle W.2B) of the same year, The 004B had a significantly higher specific fuel consumption (SFC) than the Welland (1.39 vs 1.12) and a significantly lower thrust-to-weight ratio (1.18 cf 1.88). The 004B compressors also had a marginal surge margin: the throttles had to be advanced and retarded very carefully to avoid a surge and flameout. This would have rendered the Me 262 at a considerable disadvantage in a turning dogfight, as compared to the Meteor F.1. This is not my opinion, but that of a former Meteor (and Hunter) pilot: and his name? Ian Whittle. At around 16:50, you state that, in April 1944, the Me 262 became the world’s first operational jet fighter. I’ve corrected this (and myself) elsewhere on KZbin. The Me 262 was released to a flight trials unit in April 1944, or thereabouts. It did not enter squadron service with the Luftwaffe until August 1944 at the very earliest, and, according to several sources, was not in full squadron service until October 1944. The Meteor F.1 entered service with 616 Squadron RAF in July 1944, and was shooting down V.1 ‘Doodlebugs’ in the following weeks. At around 18:00, you quote the top speed of the Gloster Meteor F.1 as 970 km/hr (606 miles/hr). However, this was the world air speed record figure set in November 1945 by a specially prepared Meteor F.3 with Derwent I engines, which produced 2,000lb thrust. The Welland engines of the Meteor F.1 produced 1,600 lb thrust and gave a top speed of 445 miles/hr. The short, fat nacelles of the Wellands resulted in drag and compressibility problems, which were overcome with longer nacelles in later marks of the Meteor. At around 18:50, you mentioned that, at GE in the States, they complained about the metric fasteners on the W.1X engine that had been sent to the USA in 1941. No doubt the complaint was justified, but the fasteners wouldn’t have been metric: Whittle and BTH would have used UK standard BSF/Whitworth nuts and bolts. American standard fasteners on US equipment could cause similar problems in Britain, but this country was more familiar with American standards on imported equipment. And what are my credentials for offering you this critique? I had a career lifetime in the design of gas turbine engines, industrial, marine and aero, and have taken an interest in the history of the jet engine for many years.

[@harriffanconshertini8804]

According to Andrew Tomas, Heron of Alexandria invented the 'turbo-jet engine'

[@michaelmccotter4293]

In fact U.S. deployed the P80 in Italy in 1945. So the Meteor was not the only allied jet deployed in WWII.

[@iteerrex8166]

Truly a creative and revolutionary design 👍👍👍

[@mickyday2008]

Whittle tested his engine in Rugby but moved to Lutterworth as a result of the noise. I’ve stood on the actual spot of the first test in the factory where I worked which still stands today.

[@pcka12]

The debacle over Whittle's patent is typical of the British establishment, post war they gave jets to the USSR & those jets promptly ended up in Mig 15s

[@akula9713]

The yanks promised to share the atomic bomb design. The U.K. had given them all the information from tube alloys and the Maude project, years ahead of the Americans. But after the war, the yanks wouldn’t share for many reason, spies, hatred of the British Empire, etc. so in response the Labour government stuck two fingers up to the yanks and gave the Soviets jet engines.

[@grahamj9101]

I must congratulate you on an attempt to give due recognition to two jet engine pioneers. However, there are some errors and omissions in your presentation. I’ve tried to take some notes of the most significant of these. But firstly, let’s address the most important single issue. At about 6:16, you suggest that “two individuals came up with the idea at about the same time”. Not so - and the timelines are very clear: Frank Whittle developed his ideas some years before von Ohain. Whittle’s patent was granted in 1931 and a copy was registered at the German Patent Office in August of that year. Von Ohain applied for a patent in 1935, and he mentions in his autobiography that, during its preparation, his lawyer drew his attention to the Whittle patent, so as to avoid an infringement. However, there are those who suspect that Von Ohain might actually have seen the Whittle patent while at university, because copies would have been widely distributed by the Patent Office. Furthermore, in later life, von Ohain acknowledged publicly on several occasions that if Whittle had received the level of support he had received in the early days, then the RAF could have had a jet fighter in the air some three years earlier than the Luftwaffe. Another contributor has quoted from von Ohain’s foreword to the book ‘Elements of Propulsion; Gas Turbines and Rockets’, in which he states that, ”This first test run [of the Whittle/Power Jets WU] was the world’s first run of a bench-test engine operating with liquid fuel.” The last four words are significant, because there are those in Germany and elsewhere who like to believe that von Ohain’s engine first ran on Hydrogen at about the same time, if not before the WU, which ran for the first time on 12 April 1937. However, Ernst Heinkel, who was von Ohain’s backer, has contradicted this. There is certainly evidence that von Ohain’s engine was motored over, via a belt drive from the workshop ceiling, for flow and pressure measurement purposes during the spring of 1937. Nevertheless, in his autobiography, Heinkel recorded that it did not run on Hydrogen until September 1937, and on liquid fuel six months later. Von Ohain acknowledged that he and Hahn had major problems with their combustion chamber. Unfortunately, Frank Whittle has been the object of anti-British sentiment and pro-German misinformation for many years, much of it emanating from the USA. This even descends to the level of being insulting. I can only surmise that it is an attempt, whether subconscious or otherwise, to salvage a modicum of pride from the unspeakable horrors of the Third Reich.

[@stephensenior3589]

Britains first jet fighter was the Gloster meteor First flight: March 5, 1943, the first official airspeed record by a jet aircraft was set by a Meteor F.3 at 606 miles per hour (975 km/h). In 1946

[@johnmorris7815]

The strange reality of the jet engine is that the concept of simplicity with only one moving part was pretty much abandoned in the first decade, with modern engines being every bit as complex as there piston counterparts, with three independent rotors, variable geometry stator vanes, thermal controlled turbine clearance and more bleed control than you can shake a stick at.

[@Hurricayne92]

to be fair most of that would be completely impossible with a piston powered aircraft.

[@1414141x]

This is a similar 'contest' to Eddison and Swan is it not ? Both were developing similar strategies to develop the first functional light bulb for mass production. Eddison was not averse to challenging patents, but I believe Swan was one step ahead and managed to patent his idea first. Eddison was successful in forming a joint collaboration with Swan. No doubt Swan was aware that Eddison had the ability to mass produce the bulbs more quickly.

[@billballbuster7186]

The first practicl jet engines were designed by the British, the Axial-Flow turbojet by AA Griffith in1923 and the Centrifugal-Flow jet by Whittle in 1929. Hans von Ohain wrote that he used the published theories and experiments of the Axial-Flow Turbojet of AA Griffith's design. Though both engines worked in theory, the Whittle engine matured faster and produced more thrust. The Griffith design took longer because of finding the correct metals needed. The Germans went ahead anyway and the engines suffered short life and poor reliability. The A.W. Sapphire was the first truely successfull axial flow turbojet flown in 1948. By the1950s Axial-Flow jets exceeded Centrifugal-Flow in term of power and reliability.

[@aubreydrinkwater3236]

I understand that Frank Whittle patent the jet engine in 1927 at a cost of £5 pounds Stirling. When the patent ran out after 5 years, he couldn't afford the cost of renewal. The British government of the time decided not to keep it secret, but instead let anyone look at the design (which the Germans in their wisdom did). They realized its potential and forged ahead with a jet engine of their own, but largely based on Whittle's design. Later at the end of the second world war, the Labour government allowed the jet engine to be sold to Joseph Stalin's Russia who then fitted it into the Mig fifteens, which were used in the Korean War of 1949/1953 shooting down many of our, and our allies aircraft killing many pilots... Thanks to the Labour party. As I am lead to believe?

[@kennethhawley1063]

The failure of moter jets proves that very few engineers really understood thermodynamics. Whittle was one of the few that did.

[@JAGRAFX]

When one invents the automotive turbocharger; one is practically half way to the turbojet.

[@JessWLStuart]

Well presented!

[@alexandraa5742]

Not specific to this channel necessarily but I've noticed Simon isn't showing up as often in other channels that he used to host. Anyone got any insight on this? Simon's website and X don't mention anything. Thanks!

[@vlamm676]

The owner of those channels (warographics, geographics, etc) and Simon has a falling out. The owner of those channels put out a post about it explaining why. No bad blood just bad communication and such. Simon is now making some of his own channels based on the same topics, like the channel Places

[@gregculverwell]

A slight correction.... The ME 208 was not in any way a prototype fighter. It was built for record breaking - a propaganda tool.

[@rexbarron4873]

In a Cheltenham shopping arcade there is a small glass case with a model of the E28. That's where the fuselage was built.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

I've been in Whittle's little BTH workshop/ test unit in Brownsover, Rugby.

[@bogit4695]

Coincidentally I was in the Munich science museum yesterday and these early jet engines and planes are on display there.

[@tsegulin]

01:21 "...by the end of the 1930s it was becoming clear that conventional reciprocating engine and propeller technology had been pushed to its limits... I would suggest it might have been a bit earlier. In 1933 when Ernst Heinkel and the Gunther twins produced the He-70 Blitz mail plane, Heinkel writes in his autobiography that while the Treaty of Versailles had aimed to crush the German military aviation industry, it failed to prevent them producing competitive airframes, but it effectively stymied the development of modern high performance piston engines. The radical He 70 Blitz mail plane was under-powered with the BMW VI - a development of WW1 engine design - and Heinkel had to look to the Rolls Royce Kestrel for the Blitz. He mused about his own company getting into the engine business, but rivals like Daimler-Benz, Junkers, Bramo etc. had too much of a lead for that to be practical. Besides, he was aware that propellers were approaching the linear speed of sound at their tips (as you said) which limited their efficiency and that new 'impulse engine' concepts like rockets or gas turbines may be where the key to creating faster aircraft lay. When the University of Gottingen approached Heinkel to see if he might be interested in bankrolling von Ohain's gas turbine development, he jumped at the chance as a way to leapfrog his rivals and lead the world in jet propulsion. This ultimately led to the HeS-03 turbojet and the 1939 flight of the first aircraft designed to be propelled a jet, the He-178. 17:05 "... Hitler ordered [the Me-262] for ground attack..." It's often said that that Hitler interfered with the Me-262A 'Schwalbe' fighter program, requiring it to be modified as a bomber they called the 'Sturmvogel', denying the Luftwaffe a first class air superiority fighter. Further investigation (the KZbin Military Aviation History channel has an episode on this) shows that Messerschmitt had originally allowed for the possibility of the Me-262 carrying bombs or drop tanks before this and was not taken aback by Hitler's demands to use it as a bomber. The principal reasons the Me-262 arrived so late in the war was the low priority the jet fighter program had received earlier and the lack of strategic ores like chromium, vanadium, tin and molybdenum which had plagued reciprocating engine development and now denied German metallurgists the means to build the Jumo 004B gas turbine with appropriate high temperature alloys. The entire engine program was delayed for a year while Dr Franz figured out how to build a sophisticated axial flow jet engine out of only aluminium and mild steel. Hundreds of Me-262 airframes lay waiting for engines that finally arrived in mid 1944 and even then were unreliable and had a short service life. It's notable how Messerschmitt mounted the engines beneath the wings for easy service and quick replacement.

[@AidanAshby]

It made me smile when I heard you say “Heinkel hired von Ohain”

[@deanhansen5041]

I remember when jets were loud as all out. When outside you had to guit talking til it passed over away. Nowadays nobody pays attention when they fly over.

[@tomholroyd7519]

"Batteries to power! Turbines to speed!" -- Robin

[@George-hs2zm]

But the luftwaffe had the Me262 jet fighter in 1944. Britain didn't develop whittles technology until until at least 1950.

[@johnburns4017]

*There is a myth that the Germans were way ahead of the British in jet engines and planes in WW2, when the opposite is true.* The WW2 German jet engines were extremely unreliable with low performances and very high fuel consumption. The German *axial-flow* turbojets never worked as they wanted, being developed up to 1953 by the French to obtain a usable engine. The French lost a lot of time playing around with the German engines, instead of working with the British. The French and Soviets after WW2 tried to improve the German axial-flow engines and largely failed. The Germans did not invent the axial-flow turbojet, they based everything on Frank Whittle's patents. The British Metropolitan-Vickers F.1 axial-flow engine was running on a test bed in 1941. The F.2 was an axial-flow being an extremely advanced design using a nine-stage axial compressor, annular combustor, and a two-stage turbine. It powered a Meteor in November 1943. It was considered unreliable and never saw use during the war, hence why the British went for the reliability, controllability and quick development of the centrifugal turbojets. The Metro-Vick F.3 was the first ever *turbofan* in 1943. Metro-Vick developed the F.9 Sapphire, however left the jet business in 1947 giving all their designs to Armstrong Siddeley, who commercially produced the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine, which was licence built in the US as the J-65. The British in order to get a usable and reliable jet engine, with the technology of the time, went for a *centrifugal* design rather than the troublesome axial-flow design. This design produced less thrust than an axial-flow but was quicker to develop and reliable outperforming the best piston engines planes at the time. It took 5 months to develop, while the first _reliable_ axial-flow engine was the 1950 Rolls Royce Avon, which took 5 years to get right. The Avon is still in production as a ground based gas turbine, with the aero version in production for 30 years. In 1945 the French made and tested some German designed turbo jets made with quality alloys unavailable to German industry in WW2. They ran for 25 hours instead of the 10 hours of the Germans engines that used poorer quality steel. Not much better. The German axial-flow engines failed because of heavy design flaws. The centrifugal compressor used by the first British Meteor plane was fine and much more reliable, but unable to reach high compression ratios. This limited performances. Centrifugal compressors were used up to the 1960s. In 1945 the team from the French ATAR laboratory plus some BMW and Junkers engineers, were engaged by the French SNECMA research bureau, with the objective to build a new reliable and performing axial-flow turbojet. The BMW 003/Jumo004 was considered unusable. It was tested on the first French jet aircraft, the 1946 So6000 Triton, overheating and exploding. The plane only flew with a Rolls Royce Nene centrifugal turbojet. The ATAR project took 6 years to produce the first acceptable axial-flow turbojet (ATAR 101 B1), produced in 1953. So 8 years research and developments by the French using the German jet engines as the base. It was installed on the first French jet fighter, the Dassault Ouragan. The French lost a lot of time because the German jets had poor efficiency and some concept failures. The failures were essentially in the combustion chambers and fresh air circulation to reduce the external temperature of the engine. The BMW jet was known for overheating problems which precluded fuselage installation. *The question at the end of WW2 was: what is the most efficient way to produce jet fighters?* The answer was clearly not adopting the German design of engine and fuselage. The build costs for a jet engine were much higher than a piston engine, with the fuel consumption near 3x. The centrifugal compressor the British adopted in some planes was the best choice with 1944-45 technology, more compression pressure was not an advantage when the hot turbine was unable to resist higher temperatures. The German turbojets had big overheat problems as the engine would not work in an enclosed fuselage for single-engined fighters. This defect was immediately noted by the French on the 1946 "SO 6000 Triton" prototype, and by the Soviets on the 1946 Mig 9. The Soviets quickly replaced the BMW 004B2 by the centrifugal Rolls Royce Nene which worked without problems, dismissing the BMW engine for fighter planes. The Rolls Royce Nene was copied to the last nut by the USSR being installed in the Mig 15 being used effectively in the Korean war. The Meteor was the first proper fully developed jet plane introduced operationally. The 262 was slightly faster than the Meteor F3, but extremely unreliable. *The British would never put into the sky such an undeveloped plane as the me262.* The British could have had a jet fighter operational in 1941, but it may have been as bad as the me262. The Germans advanced R&D on jets after they interrogated captured British RAF men. They learned the British were advanced in jet technology and flying prototype planes. Until then the Germans had no intention of mass producing jet planes. The rushed together Me262 started claiming kills on 26 July 1944, the Meteor claimed its first V1 kill a few days later on the 4 August 1944. *But the Meteor was a proper fully developed jet plane, not a thrown together desperate effort as the me262 was.* The me262 fuselage was similar to a piston plane with the pilot over the wings obscuring downward vision, while the Meteor was a proper new design fuselage specifically for jet fighters with a forward of the wings pilot position giving superior pilot vision, as we see in planes today. The cockpit was very quiet. The sweptback wings of the me262 were to move the engines further back for better weight distribution, not for aerodynamic reasons as is thought the case. The me262's airframe was based on piston engine planes, even with an initial rear tail wheel. The tricycle landing gear was only introduced when it was found the thrust of the jet engines would scorch the runway surface as the exhaust faced downwards. The Meteor's airframe was designed purely for jet propulsion even with a high tail to prevent thrust interfering with the tail which could affect control. Centrifugal compressors were not obsolete being used in turboprops. Between a turbo jet and a turboprop, the only difference is the turbine, not the compressor. The last centrifugal compressor jet engine still in service on a handful of commercial aircraft like the Fokker 27, is the Rolls Royce Dart turboprop. A very reliable engine made in 27 versions, but with high fuel consumption to modern engines. The Rolls Royce Dart Turboprop turbo jet engine was produced the longest, being a comparable design turbojet to the likes the Rolls Royce Nene. The rugged engine was produced from 1946 up to 1987.

[@WendyHodgkinson]

Not a mention of the Primus stove which is basically a vertical jet engine 🤔 didn't think about that one did you?

[@irw4350]

so in other words, Frank Whittle - and I was waiting for a big reveal !

[@BlenderBends]

You mentioned how GE got into the Jet age. How did Rolls Royce get into it? As now those two seem to have the Airline market covered.

[@davidelliott5843]

It’s a myth to say that Hitler’s demands negatively affected the Me262. Willy Messerschmitt simply added a nosewheel (which it needed anyway) and some external bomb racks (easy additions). The reality was problems with engine control. They could not be quickly powered up or shut down. Both severe constraints for a fighter. The issues were improved but never solved.

[@robertmiller2173]

So Hanz Von Ohain not only invented the Jet Aircraft but also Jet Fuel! If one looks at Whittles Jet Engine and compares it to Ohains, it is clear that Ohain's Invention, proven through Utility. In other words his (Ohains) invention worked and produced a jet powered Aircraft in August 1939, one month before WW2.

[@etherospike3936]

Although ahead of it's time, the concept of a jet engine was realised by Henry Coanda in 1910 !

[@jamesturner2126]

4:30 That's incorrect. Turbine blades consume around 50% of the 🔥 energy driving their compressor blades. Some compressors compress room temp air to +1000°F and +100lb/in². That compressor discharge air is so hot that all common liquid fuels spontaneously combust when injected into the following combustor. Using all that energy to compress air allows turbine engines to run similar to diesel piston engines, only requiring an ignition source to start the process and in emergencies.

[@SAHBfan]

How this guy can make this video without even mentioning A.A.Grifith and the development of the axial compressor is…. Amazing.