worlds first jet aircraft

[PAPA G]

Coanda

amazing, what could he have done if he had financial backing.

[TXplt]

Very interesting

Although also the Wright Brothers didn't fly the first airplane, and Edison didn't invent the first light bulb either.

But like Whittle, they did produce the first successful variant of each and were able to produce and commercially exploit it.

[nathangdad]

really is a sad theme throughout history.

There are so often people decades ahead of their time who can find no one to listen to their ideas, no one to invest, and they become lost to history.

[DWARREN123]

Things come to be when things are right. Jet engines needed materials that could withstand the heat and RPM's of the engine. Once materials were available it came together just like many other inventions.

[Kaybe]

I didn't know, thanks for the info

[SwedeSteve]

Interesting read. Thanks for posting !!

[Clem321]

The jet engine was invented simultaneously in Germany and England in the late ‘20s. Some prototypes were built in the ‘30s, but the first operational a/c was the German Me262. Slick enough to be pretty fast, but underpowered enough that if the pilot turned in a fight, he would bleed off much of his energy and make himself vulnerable to the hot piston engine fighters like the P-51. Brought in a new era in air combat.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by TXplt

Very interesting

Although also the Wright Brothers didn't fly the first airplane, and Edison didn't invent the first light bulb either.

But like Whittle, they did produce the first successful variant of each and were able to produce and commercially exploit it.

Tex, being that you are a pilot yourself, who in your opinion did fly the first aeroplane (as they spelled it back then)? There are those who support Whitehead, and recreations of his design do fly (after a fashion); but his claim to have flown it in Connecticut over Long Island Sound has no evidence to support it. Langley's 'aerodrome' flew in model form but when scaled up proved incapable of getting aloft with a payload in the form of a pilot. There was a mechanic in Germany whose flying boat design would have flown a year before the Wright Brothers, if Mercedes Benz had delivered the engine he ordered to the specs he provided; but in the event the engine was too heavy to allow the plane to take off and it crashed on the takeoff run.

My understanding is that the Wrights' place in history rests on the fact they were the first to fly a heavier-than-air aeroplane that could be sustained and controlled in flight, that would go where the pilot wanted it to go, and not merely fly in a stright line influenced by the wind. Am I wrong?

[ACfixer]

There are some that credit Richard Pearse for the first flight, but the evidence is somewhat shaky. Even though, there were witnesses that said he flew a barely controllable monoplane several times in New Zealand about 9 months before the Wright Bros..

Richard Pearse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by ACfixer

There are some that credit Richard Pearse for the first flight, but the evidence is somewhat shaky, even though there were witnesses that said he flew a barely controllable monoplane several times in New Zealand about 9 months before the Wright Bros.

The operant words in your post are "barely controllable." These are the same words that dog the claim of Gustav Whitehead, who allegedly flew an airplane at Fairfield, Connecticut two years before the Wright Brothers' first flight in North Carolina. A replica of the "Whitehead No. 21" airplane he supposedly flew in 1901 has been flown, but controlling the thing is problematic at best. I remember seeing a special on it, and controlling it is much more like flying a hang-glider than driving an proper airplane.

Per the Wikipedia entry on Pearse, this is the real reason neither Pearse nor Whitehead is regarded as the father of aviation:

Pearse, as one of several pre-Wright designers, advanced some distance towards controlled flight. However, unlike many of these other pre-Wright aeronauts, Pearse had little influence on his successors, because details of his ideas and experiments went unpublished.

Orville and Wilbur Wright were the first designers and pilots to approach the problem systematically and deduce the principles of flight, and then publish them. They were the first to devise solutions to the problems of controlling altitude, attitude and direction that worked every time, though their approach of canards and wing-warping was quickly abandoned in favor of ailerons and elevators. All fixed-wing powered flight descends from their published principles.

That's why they are regarded around the world as the fathers of aviation. Others may have gotten off the ground before they did, but the Wright Flyer was the first heavier-than-air machine that could sustain completely controlled flight; and that was the Holy Grail of early aviation.

[Clem321]

What is funny is to look at the Write flyer and compare it to a/c today. The wing is highly cambered, and very thin. Take a look at the wing of the F-15. It works very well, and looks an awful lot like the original Wright wing.

Now take a look at canards. Apparently they play hell with radar cross section, but look at the Rafale, Griffon or the Eurofighter, all active canard jets, plus plenty of prototypes with canards. The Wright brothers were slow enough that they didn’t have too much trouble with pitch stability. If they had gone faster, perhaps they would have been the first guys to develop fly-by-wire controls, too.

[cremley]

Originally Posted by DWARREN123

Things come to be when things are right. Jet engines needed materials that could withstand the heat and RPM's of the engine. Once materials were available it came together just like many other inventions.

Very true! The same reason Germany couldn't get their jet fighters working in WW2. The materials couldn't do it and they didn't have the ability to make the high precision and accurate parts that were needed.

[ottawa rogue]

i could be totally off the mark here, but that don't strike me as a true jet engine seeing how the compressor is driven by a piston engine instead of the exhaust turbine.
anyone have any thoughts on this???

[cremley]

Originally Posted by ottawa rogue

i could be totally off the mark here, but that don't strike me as a true jet engine seeing how the compressor is driven by a piston engine instead of the exhaust turbine.
anyone have any thoughts on this???

Well, it says that the piston engine drives the compressor and there is also a "burning room" (combustion chamber) and an exiting turbine so I think it would be considered a jet engine.

[sea_chicken1]

A jet engine needs to do to do 4 things to be considered a jet engine. Suck the air in, compress the air, ignite the air and push the air out providing force for a turbine or forced propulsion.

[ACfixer]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

...All fixed-wing powered flight descends from their published principles.

That's why they are regarded around the world as the fathers of aviation. Others may have gotten off the ground before they did, but the Wright Flyer was the first heavier-than-air machine that could sustain completely controlled flight; and that was the Holy Grail of early aviation.

I think the "publishing" part of it along with a fair sprinkling of politics had much to do with it. The flights of the Wright Flyer weren't much better than Pearse! Yeah from what I remember (I should read more) Whitehead's machine was devoid of control surfaces but still may have qualified as a "heavier than air flying machine". In any event, the Wrights were in the right place at the right time and did the right stuff to earn the title. All of those guy though were incredibly innovative and some brave men.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

Tex, being that you are a pilot yourself, who in your opinion did fly the first aeroplane (as they spelled it back then)? There are those who support Whitehead, and recreations of his design do fly (after a fashion); but his claim to have flown it in Connecticut over Long Island Sound has no evidence to support it. Langley's 'aerodrome' flew in model form but when scaled up proved incapable of getting aloft with a payload in the form of a pilot. There was a mechanic in Germany whose flying boat design would have flown a year before the Wright Brothers, if Mercedes Benz had delivered the engine he ordered to the specs he provided; but in the event the engine was too heavy to allow the plane to take off and it crashed on the takeoff run.
My understanding is that the Wrights' place in history rests on the fact they were the first to fly a heavier-than-air aeroplane that could be sustained and controlled in flight, that would go where the pilot wanted it to go, and not merely fly in a stright line influenced by the wind. Am I wrong?

Cyrano, I would probably have to go with Samuel P. Langley whose first heavier than air powered aircraft in 1896 would at least have been a form of powered flight (albeit without a pilot) and are the first ones which were no kidding verified and achieved some form of success in a flyable design. A couple of his Aerodromes flew for close to a mile from what I recall and formed a basis for Glenn Curtis' later designs. To me, this indicates power an control in a heavier than air design but we're certainly in a gray area. Although it was a scaled model one might argue that all the airplanes subsequently produced were scaled models in a way (evolving from their slower and lighter ancestors). And now we have UAV's which are still a form of aircraft.

Pearse is somewhat tempting, but I think when looked at objectively the craft wasn't either under power to sustain flight or any significant degree of control. Maybe I'm wrong and you could probably assert that this counted and the Wright Bros. established a longer "record" flight. If you asked the Brazilians they'd probably argue Santos-Dumont for takeoff, flight, and landing.

I believe you are quite right in that the Wright Bros (no pun intended) were the first to have all the stars align and achieve manned powered flight in some type of controllable platform. But one must remember that whether the original Flyer was indeed controllable in the truest sense of the word is a bit iffy -- or at least demonstrates the incredible skill or luck of its pilot--but it was the first start in manned, powered, controlled flight which actually worked for a time period. When it was re-created keeping the airplane under control I believe exceeded the ability of its modern-day pilot and they were unable to get the machine flying. In any case, what the Wright Bros. did was quite an accomplishment ! Moreover, they were able to exploit their design into a commercially viable product which could be used by others and let folks like me jump in on the top floor after things got good and comfy. But it is a great ride and I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's still fun -- guess I'll move on when it isn't fun anymore but I've not gotten anywhere near there yet. And there are still more airplanes to fly. It's simply amazing to me that I can watch the sun rising over the Pacific on the way over from Asia and then later setting on my commute back to Texas. One can literally be half way around the world overnight and that is pretty awesome I think.

I would have to respectfully disagree with the comparison between the F-15 wing and that of the Flyer in that I flew F-15's and don't believe them to be anything alike (although the flyer did use wing warping for roll control and the F-15 wings are twisted a little but for completely different reasons). Wouldn't really call the Flyer stable in pitch either but it was certainly a remarkable achievement and shows what we Americans can do when we put our minds toward doing something useful.

Cheers

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by sea_chicken1

A jet engine needs to do to do 4 things to be considered a jet engine. Suck the air in, compress the air, ignite the air and push the air out providing force for a turbine or forced propulsion.

Suck, Squeeze, Bang, and Blow.

Or Suck, Squeeze, Blow and Go if you prefer

[ottawa rogue]

Originally Posted by cremley

Well, it says that the piston engine drives the compressor and there is also a "burning room" (combustion chamber) and an exiting turbine so I think it would be considered a jet engine.

yes, but in every jet engine i've seen or heard of, the turbine drives the compressor. it's the only reason to have a turbine.

i wonder what the purpose of the turbine is in this engine, since the compressor is driven extenally, you could eliminate it all together

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by ottawa rogue

yes, but in every jet engine i've seen or heard of, the turbine drives the compressor. it's the only reason to have a turbine.

i wonder what the purpose of the turbine is in this engine, since the compressor is driven extenally, you could eliminate it all together

I don't know--the ramjet didn't have a compressor but was still a form of jet engine.

The setup on this particular engine seems more like a piston engine driving a high speed compressor/fan section with an "Afterburner" which is the jet portion. I'm not sure about the semantics but it does seem like some form of jet but it must've been horribly inefficient (afterburners double thrust at the cost of SIX TIMES the fuel flow typically). But when one considers the very basic engine technology available in 1910 the design does seem like a marvel of sorts. It seems kind of scary -- from reading it at least it seems you have a constant and semi-contained continuous fuselage fire going.

Note that some of the last piston aircraft engines developed were the Wright Turbo Compound engines which used Power Recovery Turbines (PRT's) in the exhaust from the piston engine to recover waste heat and exhaust velocity and couple this through a type of automatic transmission setup back to the crankshaft. These actually did extend range by about 15 - 20 percent.

But they were WAY problematic--the DC-7's and Super Connies had engine failure/fire rates much higher than the non turbo-compounds. The PRT's got the nickname "parts recovery turbines."