You say that we can only discuss truth not semantics, unfortunately, semantics strike at the heart of the truth being portrayed in speech.
So…
There are three definitions of the word “develop”:
1: to cause something to grow or change into a more advanced, larger or stronger form.
2: to invent or bring something into existence.
3: to make photographs from a film.
I think we can ignore definition 3 for the moment.
Now, strictly speaking, you are correct when you say that the US did develop the jet engine - IF you take the meaning of develop as definition 1. However, to my mind, the use of the word “independently” juxtaposed with “develop” causes the meaning of the statement to change to meaning 2. That is why I have brought up semantics. Not because I am denying that the US did work on the design of the jet engine, but because I feel that the way you have put your point across is incorrect.
Your statement implies that the USA, without any input from any other country, developed the jet engine from scratch. If you had said that the USA had further developed the concept of the jet engine from the prototype invented by Whittle, I would not have taken exception to your comment.
I for one am getting a little tired of Americans taking the credit for British acheivements (cf. U571 and that ilk). Have you not got enough to be proud of as a country that you have to steal our history too?
While they shared engine designs with each other, they did not work on the projects together. The countries worked independantly to create new designs - their engineers did not work together. There were not British engineers working on the GE and Allison jet engines. lol
You are continuously trying to say that none of the adaptations made to the original Whittle design by the US were developments in jet engine technology, such as:
A) those which resulted in more power than any jet before them
B) those which increased the number of fans and fan designs that enabled the production of more power (causing the british to go back to the drwaing board and “think bigger”).
If that were true, then none of the adaptations made by the British would be development of the jet engine either!!!
Yes my bull-headed friend, the US and Britain worked independantly to develop jet engine technology. You have been given far more than enough historical information to help you accept this.
I realize that you put yourself into a “bugger” when you made the statment that “the US didn’t do much to develop the jet engine untill after WWII”, but as you have seen from the historical evidence, that is far, far from true. What is so hard about saying, “Oh! I was wrong. I didn’t know about that part.” You may try as you like to discredit the US contribution to jet engine design during WWII, but it will always fail, because historical fact proves otherwise.
No worries though. We all make incorrect statements sometimes and later have to own up to them. Maturity however, enables us to do so.
Dude, the film you mention depicts the historical fact that the US Navy that captured a U-boat and enigma machine. I realize that the 571 was not the U-boat that was captured by the US, but that is Hollywood’s bullsh*t, not mine. Let’s not get into an entire list of British and American acheivements, ok? There are too many on each side to mention. I think your statement that Americans have a habit of taking credit for British innovations is completely unbased, and I think that because some moron in Hollywood wrote a movie script about actual events but used the wrong U-boat name (intentional or not) is not an indication that Americans are always taking credit for British advances. Cool out. Perhaps if you lived in the US you would realize how incorrect that thinking is.
My friend, did I not make these statements on this very thread page?
Again, you are trying to exchange the words “invented” for “developed”. I never claimed that the US invented the jet engine! However, that does not disqualify the efforts made by US contractors which furthured the technology.
During WWII, both the US and Britain constantly made advancements over the other with jet engine design. The US would come out with a more powerful engine, and a few months later, the British would outdo them! Then it repeated itself, at least 3-5 times during the war. Nobody is trying to discredit the British developments of the jet engine during WWII, but you should not be trying to discredit those of the US either! It would seem more likely that you are trying to give credit to Britain for ALL developments in jet engine design, and that is contrary to your statement:
“I for one am getting a little tired of Americans taking the credit for British acheivements.”
Do you see how hypocritical that is? Why not just let it be. Both Britain and the US developed the jet engine independantly of each other, without working together on each other’s projects, and both made advancements in jet engine design during WWII. That should not be difficult to accept.
Both Britain and the US developed the jet engine independantly of each other,
The US would come out with a more powerful engine, and a few months later, the British would outdo them!
Our problem is not that the US did not develop the jet engine, it is your repeated claim that they did it independently. You are obviously unaware that there was a free exchange of technology (due to Churchill). This is true of Radar, Sonar, engine design (Merlin) A/T guns (17 pdr), ammo (APDS). For you to insist that the US work on its own is stupid. I am sure that if you trawled through the official papers you will find such info.
Or you could go and look in the Wright State University Libraries
Series 2 contains correspondence, internal and external, mostly of Power Jets Limited and The British Air Ministry. It is arranged chronologically, with some groupings on specific subjects. Trip reports show the sharing technology between various agencies within the British aircraft manufacturing communities as well as sharing with the United States. Most of the correspondence is technical in nature, and some reports are included as part of memos and letters. Security concerns and patent information are among the non-technical topics which show up in this series.
Both Britain and the US developed the jet engine independantly of each other,
The US would come out with a more powerful engine, and a few months later, the British would outdo them!
Where’s the contradiction there? There is none. Both Britain and the US created jet engines more powerful than each others several times during the war.
Beanie bonie!
According to your mixed up thinking, none of the developments of the jet engine during WWII could be attibuted to Britain or the US because they shared notes.
That’s perposterous. Completely.
According to your logic, none of the innovations in the design of jet engines qualifies as development, regardless of who created it. Also according to your mixed up logic, the US did not create any developments in the jet engine, simply because Britain and the US corresponded on the technology, even when the US did at times produce engines with as much as twice the power of the british, larger, and with more and newer designed fans. :lol:
Holy guano Batboy! You’re in left field now.
Did not the US increase the size and number of fans in their jet engine over what the British had done?
Was that not done without corresponing with the British since the British had not done it?
Woah! That looks like a development in the techniology, SINCE THE BRITISH DID NOT HAVE AN ENGINE AS BIG OR WITH AS MANY FANS IN IT. I guess more fans is not a development, and it was not independant of British design? Even though the British did not have it and could not send corespondance about it to the US?
You are not understanding something.
Both the British and the US corresponded and shared their findings, yes. But they could not correspond about a development until they had done it.
The British did not know about the US developments I have mentioned until the US had created them.
At first you said that the US did almost nothing to develop the jet engine until after WWII. I proved that wrong.
So, then you want to argue that the US did not make any advances in the design of jet engines. I proved that wrong.
So now, because your ice is thin, you want to argue that because they shared information that the US did not make any developments independantly of the British.
…and I have just proven that to be wrong as well.
So explain to us how the US did not make any improvements of the jet engine on their won in their own facilities with only US engineers and come up with designs which out-performed the British engines.
First you claim that the US did little to develop it (even though they produced larger, more powerful engines than the British a few times). :roll:
So you admit, once I showed you otherwise, that the US did make developments in the jet engine - that the US put a lot of resources into developing the jet engine. Hey! Didn’t you just say the US did little of nothing until after the war? :roll:
Then you admit once more that the US did make developments in the jet engine. :roll:
And you claim the US did nothing to develop the jet engine until they got their hands on German models, even though the J33 was a new design and doubled the power output over British designs, and all long before the end of the war. :roll:
Then you admit that the US improved upon the engines that they were liscenced to build and redesign. :roll:
Ahhh but they did! They created the J33 in 1943, a completely unique design having little in common with the British designs! Incorrect, once more we see.
Obviously, you just don’t know what to think.
You simply want to argue, because it aches you tremendously, that the US made developments in jet engine technology during WWII, so you attempt do discredit those developments by saying that they were not created independant of British technology because the US and Britain shared notes on the technology.
A history of your ridiculous claims has been proven incorrect, one by one. It’s shameful that you try to discredit the developments made in jet engine design by both the British and the US simply because they shared their knowledge. Both countries made developments, and the developments wrere independant of each other’s work, for they came about as a result of their own work and occured in their own countries.
The British developments did not take place in the US, and the US develpoments did not take place in Britain. Feel free to try to dig out of your hole, and offer some other unplasible explaination of how the US and British developments were invalid…because they shared notes. :lol:
You have made several ludicrous claims and they have all been proven wrong. As desperately as you want to and are trying to, you cannot prove that the US did not independantly make developments in jet engine technology during WWII… because history proves that is simply not so.
I can’t be bothered with someone that utterly clueless. It’s too painful arguing with someone who knows jack-all about gas turbines but thinks they’re an expert when you actually do know (and I could probably design a reasonably good gas turbine from scratch with a few days and a calculator - come to think of it, I already have built something very similar).
Note for the rest of the board: Both units used a single centrifugal compressor, not a “fan” of any description (no jet engine uses anything that could be described as a “fan”). As such, the power increase was through scaling up the front centrifugal compressor to give a larger air mass flow rate rather than “increasing the number of fans”. In any case increasing the number of compression stages (for an axial compressor - the engine he’s referring to used a centrifugal compressor) gives a higher compression ratio, and hence higher efficiency and lower EGT (quick approximation - doesn’t quite work like that for turbojets, but close enough). However, merely increasing the compression ratio for the same air mass flow will give a lower power - but this guy is enough of a twit not to realise this.
<stamps off seething at having to deal with complete idiots who think they’re God’s gift to engineering when they only know enough to kill someone>
Turbojet, Turbofan, and Turboprop, Unductred Fan engines, and Propfan engines are different types of jet engines.
“Turbojet Engine”
“At the rear of the inlet, the air enters the compressor. The compressor acts like many rows of airfoils, with each row producing a small jump in pressure. A compressor is like an electric fan.”
“The most common type of jet engine is the turbojet engine. Air from the atmosphere enters the fan section at the front of the engine where it is compressed in the compressor section. Then it is forced into combustion chambers where fuel is sprayed into it and ignited. Gases that form expand rapidly and are exhausted out the rear of the combustion chambers. The energy from these gases spins the fan-like set of blades called a turbine, which rotates the turbine shaft.”
“Modern turbojet engines are modular in concept and design. The central power-producing core, common to all jet engines, is called the gas generator (described above). To it are attached peripheral modules such as propeller reduction gearsets (turboprop/turboshaft), bypass fans, and afterburners.”
“German Anselm Franz of Junkers’ engine division (Junkers Motoren or Jumo) addressed this problem with the introduction of the baxial-flow compressor. Essentially, this is a turbine in reverse. Air coming in the front of the engine is blown to the rear of the engine by a fan stage(convergent ducts), where it is crushed against a set of non-rotating blades called stators (divergent ducts). The process is nowhere near as powerful as the centrifugal compressor, so a number of these pairs of fans and stators are placed in series to get the needed compression.”
It seems that you mistakenly think that because a turbofan engine has a big fan in the front, that a turbojet engine does not use compressor fans, or that a turbofan engine is not a jet engine.
Please start making posts that are not filled with false information. I’m weary of having to correct every single post you make because it contains falsehoods. It’s getting old.
Me 262 used disel fuel for Jumo 004 and BMW003 engines (i don’t know wich exactly sort of but name was J2). For start Jumo 004 used gas (B4 87 octane gazoline) and after start and 3000rpm Jumo 004 used J2 fuel.
Some sources named J2 fuel an “aircraft oil”, some - “disel fuel”…
Me 262 C (modification with rocket engine Walter HWK 509A-2) use as fuel for HWK 509A two components: T-Stoof and C- Stoff.
C-Stoff: 30% hydrate hydrozine, 57% - methanol, 13% - water. - fuel.
T-Stoff: 80% hydrogen peroxide, 20 % water. - oxidant.
Deisel? Geez. No wonder they ate the metal up at the rear of those early engines. It takes high temps to get diesel to burn. Do you suppose that was part of the problem?
Deisel? Geez. No wonder they ate the metal up at the rear of those early engines. It takes high temps to get diesel to burn. Do you suppose that was part of the problem?[/quote]
I can’t obtain some more information about J2 fuel. I only know - that wasn’t usual deisel fuel, someting special.
I know few facts - after WWII USSR and Czech get few Me 262 and some quantity of Jumo 004. And after time went on troubles by shortage of original J2 fuel. Problems was related with special behavior of original J2 - russian and czech analogs freezed about at -8 C, and original J2 freezed at - 40 C. So i can suppose - J2 not usual diesel fuel or oil… it was something special.
Not usual aircraft kerosene or gas, not usual diesel fuel… :roll:
Actually, you’re correcting them because you’re too dumb to realise they’re right and you’re wrong. While you’re having to look up Wikipedia to support your case, I’m relying on lectures/supervisions by people with letters like “FRS” after their name. I spent last year working in a place called the “Whittle Lab”, opened by the very same Sir Frank, and part of the department where both he and Charles Parsons did much of their work. In comparison, quoting Wikipedia like that is the mark of “googlebrains”, someone who thinks that google can think for them. It can’t. Now off you go and get an engineering degree (preferably in turbomachinery like mine) before you start showing off your ignorance again.
The word “fan” is used because people can’t be bothered to explain to clueless Walts like you that the operating principle of the axial compressor in a jet engine (and yes, this includes the “fan” section in a bypass jet) is in fact somewhat different. While it is possible to design and build a gas turbine engine which would run on the same principle as a fan, they would be about ten times the size and roughly 10% less efficient. The critical part of an axial turbine/compressor is the stator/rotor combination - this gets rid of the swirl component to the gas stream, and in most modern jet engines actually does most of the compression/expansion. 50% reaction seems to be typical for modern jets, although the cost/benefit of different reaction ratios is far from clear. It is also sometimes used to describe the bypass section simply because it’s a nice short convenient word - and even if I allow that (note that it refers to the whole section rather than individual parts) bypass gas turbines didn’t start appearing until well after the war.
In fact, the word fan is being used in much the same way as people say that aircraft fly due to the Bernoulli effect. Bernoulli has of course nothing to do with it, but it causes far less grief than trying to explain bound vortices, the Coanda effect and Kutta condition to people who can’t speak engineer.
Nobody said the word “fan” was the technical name for the parts. But then, many things have “common names” used to describe them, and you appearently use the word yourself. Appearently everyone who is anyone is using the word “fan” to describe the parts.
So, the statement
is obviously incorrect, since those who are authoritative on the subject commonly use it to describe the components. However, in regard to turbofan engines, the term is inseperable with the engine, for a “fan” is an actual component of that jet engine type.
Popssible? Um… it IS the same principle as a fan. That’s why people like NASA and everyone else commonly use the term “fan” to explain the jet engine to laymen.
I don’t have an engineering degree, but Gomer Pile would know that if a machine needed to be 10 times in size to equal power outbut, it’s going to be a helluvu lot more than just 10% less efficient, because of the greatly increased weight if nothing else. :roll:
I don’t enjoy this you know. But when someone posts something that attempts to show that I am an “idiot” or a “walt” simply because I posted something informative and they don’t like anyone to see that someone else knows anything, and their post uses false information to try to do it, it’s going to elicit a response and that response will include a correction of the false information.
So please stop trying to depict me in an unfavorable light and stop using false information in your attempts to do it. And you can keep you insults and name calling to yourself. They pertain more to you than me.
Me 262 used disel fuel for Jumo 004 and BMW003 engines (i don’t know wich exactly sort of but name was J2). For start Jumo 004 used gas (B4 87 octane gazoline) and after start and 3000rpm Jumo 004 used J2 fuel.
Some sources named J2 fuel an “aircraft oil”, some - “disel fuel”…
Me 262 C (modification with rocket engine Walter HWK 509A-2) use as fuel for HWK 509A two components: T-Stoof and C- Stoff.
C-Stoff: 30% hydrate hydrozine, 57% - methanol, 13% - water. - fuel.
T-Stoff: 80% hydrogen peroxide, 20 % water. - oxidant.[/quote]
thanks
Could this also have been from their synthetic fuel programme?
2nd of foot wrote:
Would someone please get me a baseball bat
