Read the forum code of contact
By: - 15th September 2013 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have read differing accounts of that 1947 decision...
Depending on the sources, Metrovick either left the aircraft engine business on their own to concentrate on steam turbines, or were forced from the market by the Ministry of Supply.
Either way, Metrovick continued development of naval GTs, producing the G.6 for the RN’s County class DDGs and Tribal class FFs, and the Italian San Goirgio class Destroyers (D 562/563 refitted) & Alpino (F 580/581) class Frigates.
Metrovick's aircraft engine design team was quickly snapped up by Armstrong Siddeley. Although Armstrong Siddeley already had a turbine development of their own, the ASX, they were primarily focused on turboprops and the Metrovick team was a welcome addition. Work on the F.9 continued, now renamed the ASSa.6.
By: - 15th September 2013 at 09:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know what you mean but as with the Aircraft Manufacturers...it was much easier to get contracts if you were 'in the club'...Metrovick were really only in the aviation side due to the war so I doubt they would have argued any more than was necessary to get a good deal !
By: - 15th September 2013 at 10:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As mentioned in post 1...the first british axial flow engine to fly was the Metrovick F2,early testing in the tail of a Lancaster and then 2 flight rated engines were fitted to Gloster Meteor DG204,this a/c crashed on 4th(14th ?) jan 1944 after only approx 3 hours of engine testing - unfortunately killing the pilot Sqn Ldr Davie AFC.
Has anybody read the accident report for this a/c ?I know this accident spurred on ejection seat development as poor Davie was unable to bale out at high speed.
It may have been uncontained compressor failure but have been unable to verify without going to national archives!
Here is a picture of DG204,probably taken at the Gloster Bentham facility and illustrates the primitive conditions under which much of this development work was undertaken,you can just see the chain from the stbd u/c leg back to the single anchor point,the a/c being tied down for engine testing...
By: - 15th September 2013 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From the Pastscape website...
A few interesting details of Bentham and other minor gloster facilities.
In 1939 the Air Ministry gave the go-ahead for a prototype jet powered airplane. The Gloster company were appointed to build the airframe because their drawing office, under W G Carter had the necessary expertise and the capacity. The design and construction of the airframe took place at a number of sites, but the Bentham factory was not amongst them. Drawing offices were located in a farm at Bishops Cleeve near Cheltenham, and also in the Savoy Billiard Hall in Cheltenham. Assembly of the prototype took place at Brockworth in No. 3 Hangar, a `Belfast' Hangar dating from the First World War, which was used by Gloster for experimental work, and also at Regent Motors, a large garage in Regent Street, Cheltenham. The engine, supplied by Whittle's Power Jets company, was made at their factory in Lutterworth.The first, short flight of no more than several feet took place on Tuesday 8 April 1941 at the Brockworth airfield (NMR UID 1031173) which is circa 2 miles to the west of the Bentham factory. Following the first flight at Brockworth, and before the first official flight at RAF Cranwell on 15 May 1941, the plane was taken apart and thoroughly inspected before being sent to another of Gloster's satellite sites at Crabtree's Garage, Cheltenham for modifications to the undercarriage, painting of the fuselage and the fitting of a different engine, again supplied by Power Jets of Lutterworth. It was also to Crabtree's that the plane was returned from Cranwell at the end of May to be fitted with new high-lift wings and for other modifications.
The Gloster aircraft unit at Bentham was built as a satellite site to the main factory at
Brockworth. It was a new, purpose-built design and experimental facility, built at the foot of Crickley Hill to make an enemy bombing run difficult. It was being built in the latter part of 1941. An Air Ministry official visited Bentham in July 1942 and recorded that there were 130 men working in the experimental shop at Bentham.The Bentham unit was apparently first involved in the E28 project in April 1943 when further work to refine the design of the aircraft was carried out there, including the fitting of a new W2/500/3 engine with increased power. Development of prototypes for jet planes by Gloster Aircraft also took place at Bentham, including the Meteor and Ace, prior to the end of the war. The Ace was not considered a success, but the Meteor entered service and was to prove significant in catching and shooting down German V1 flying bombs. The Bentham site was closed by Hawker Siddeley Aviation, the parent company of Gloster Aircraft in 1963 and the buildings have been used since that time by small businesses.
By: - 15th September 2013 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
b and b: #2 & 3: Metrovick. It's complicated.
MV and BTH had been contracted in 1938-ish into reaction thrust by Power Jets (centrifugals) and by RAE (axials) because they were familiar with things that spin (US would go to Allis Chalmers, Westinghouse and GE on the same logic). No point in putting gyres into the Aero Ring, struggling on Hyper recips. AEI owned both MV and BTH, were themselves majority owned by (US) GE, and were a mighty industrial force in power generation.
In 1947 UK had no enemy, no money, no need for Defence beyond tribal pacification. MV/RAE F.9 was favoured for the Gloster scheme for a night fighter, and by late-1947, for the HP solution to the Medium Bomber. But the money was not there, but in the Br.Electricity Authority, embarking on renewal of the grid. AEI's Chairman was Oliver Lyttleton, till 7/45, Minister of Production, and Pres. of the Board of Trade. That job in 1947 was held by Stafford Cripps, who as Minister of Aircraft Production had worked closely with OL. They did a deal: power-generation to AEI, F.9 to HS Group, interested in earning with, not closing down Armstrong Siddeley Motors.
By: - 15th September 2013 at 18:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Ken...sorry I had made a purposefully light reply to bager,yes it was complicated times around the aero industry and I must admit that I have never looked closely into the development of axial flow in the UK,whenever I get a spare half hour I just keep gently digging.
Here is a quote from this website
Giving an insight into Smith's development technique...
Though the first batch engines
were merely intended for ground running, and not for flight test, the MAP and RAE staff worried
about the units’ weight.95 Even as the units were under construction, the RAE staff were
comparing the heavy-gauge sheet metal used for components such as the combustion chamber
and the tailpipe with the much lighter material used by the Power Jets engines, and were
suggesting other ways of reducing the weight of the engines.96 Again one can see here the
influence of Metrovick’s technical style; as DM Smith was later to put it: ‘The design was not
lightened to extreme limits as it was felt more important to obtain reasonably successful
mechanical running than to achieve the lightest possible engine at the first attempt.’97 Lightness
of construction was not a core value of steam turbine design, but reliability was; without staff
who had internalised the values of aeronautical practice (as noted in the previous chapter, the
company had not been able to hire any aeronautical draughtsmen) it did not have the same
salience as ‘mechanical running’.
This paragraph pointing to a ( desireable to MAP)/possible tie up with AS as early as 1941
In response, staff at MAP began searching for a development partner who would be able to help
the company lighten the unit, as well as adapting it to aircraft practice. The Deputy Director of
Engine Research pointed out to Roxbee Cox that Metrovick did not have suitable manufacturing
facilities if the decision were made to put the F.2 into production.98 Constant had made informal
queries about what kind of manufacturing facilities might be required for mass production of F.2s
in May 1941; when the production issue was raised again in September, MV’s Baumann pointed
out that large-scale manufacture would require either the provision of shadow factory capacity or
collaboration with an aero-engine manufacturer.99 MAP’s choice of partner was the Armstrong
Siddeley Company, not least because though it was one of the big four ‘ring’ aero-engine
manufacturers,100 its piston engine projects were well behind schedule, and, in the opinion of the
MAP’s engine development expert, unlikely ever to produce production engines.101 Another factor
may have been that, like Gloster, Armstrong Siddeley was a subsidiary of the Hawker Siddeley
group. As Gloster were the manufacturers of the F.9/40 fighter that was intended to be the
Metrovick engine’s testbed, it made sense to pick a development partner that had an existing
relationship with the company.
By: - 15th September 2013 at 19:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Has anybody read the accident report for this a/c ?I know this accident spurred on ejection seat development as poor Davie was unable to bale out at high speed.
It may have been uncontained compressor failure but have been unable to verify without going to national archives!
To answer my own question and also a quote from the same article as above
Unfortunately, on a test flight in April (actually jan) 1944,
one of the engine compressor rotors burst in mid-air, killing the pilot in the subsequent crash.
Though the cause was traced to metallurgical faults in the rotor forgings
By: - 16th September 2013 at 20:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There may be one more little twist to the Smith/Metrovick story,ISTR reading many years ago that compressor design details from the F9/Sapphire engine were given to Rolls Royce because the original compressor design for the RR Avon was not working very well.
During my searches for this thread I have seen one mention of this happening but not on a website I would like to quote (cannot even remember which one LOL)...so my question is...
Can anybody corroborate the fact that F9/Sapphire design data was used to improve the performance/efficiency of the RR Avon ??
rgds baz
By: - 17th September 2013 at 09:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gunston,085059-717,P.145: (Avon) "really became competitive when in Dec.52 it was redesigned as the 200-series with a much better compressor whose first 4 stages followed the aerodynamic design of the Sapphire, and a cannular combustor."
By: - 19th September 2013 at 21:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Ken...glad my memory still works sometimes :D
Not been in the mood for any serious digging this week but here is an interesting 1950's film about early jets inc appearances by Whittle,Cunningham,Derry and some lovely aircraft footage...paticularly enjoyed seeing the Twin Aircoupe aerobatting
Posts: 6,051
By: bazv - 14th September 2013 at 14:12
A subject that crops up on here from time to time,is the 'fact' that the master race built much better jet engines than the dumb brits,this surfaced again during the latest of the Miles 52 stolen threads,I had meant to get back to this subject at some point.
As I posted previously - many people around the world were aware of the theories behind the 2 basic engine types (Axial v Centrifugal),but there were far more very difficult engineering problems in building a reliable Axial Flow engine (and not just lack of certain raw materials so often cited as the cause of the german axials short life).
The British Axial jet was being developed slowly by the Metrovick company,this company were experienced with steam turbines and did not underestimate the difficulties in building a gas turbine axial engine.
From this article...
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CFkQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hdmfc.org.uk%2FInformation%2FGas_Turbines.html&ei=V1o0UpjAOIXE7Abtp4HICA&usg=AFQjCNFX5zQTqMN5JfhYAmCRVZEaUrwW5g&sig2=ApTRMCepLtsx_YB63I7sbA
The Sapphire engine was also license built in the USA as the J65