Alphafloor From Chile, joined Jun 2004, 1277 posts, RR: 45 Posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7245 times:
Hi everyone,
I was looking for informations about the afterburner concept but can't find any info about the real origins of it. Who invented it and which aircraft model was the first to have re-heat ?
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, RR: 66 Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7231 times:
I heard that it was pesky Swedes who did the first production installation on the Tunnan (Swedish designation J29). The engine was British though so I kinda doubt it.
Found this great little propaganda film of Tunnan with accompanying martial music
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
MrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 911 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7116 times:
Actually, the Caproni-Campini CC-2 N.1 used a form of afterburner in it's motorjet engine in 1940. Unfortunately, motorjet propulsion was quickly overshadowed by the turbojet engine, as it proved to be more powerful and much lighter than the motorjet could ever be.
Wingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 834 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7059 times:
Frank Whittle did, wikipedia would suggest; it cites the Miles M52 as the earliest turbojet powered aircraft with reheat, which never flew. It would have been powered by one of Whittle's early 'power jets'.
If the Miles M52 had flown, it may have beaten the Bell X-1 to being the worlds first supersonic aircraft...
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6984 times:
Arrow,
Fascinating -- I'm surprised they didn't give us the technology as we were close allies, and we gave them lots of stuff.
The thing that really puzzles me is how the hell did the DH-Swallow have so much control problems if the Brits could have reliably simulated supersonic flow? That was disastrous -- the plane pitched violently out of control and broke up over a populated area if I recall...
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, RR: 66 Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6977 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 5):
The British had supersonic wind-tunnel technology decades before we did?
Goodness yes. Britain was way ahead of the US at the time. And the Germans were ahead of everyone. They also had a stand-alone air force 30 years earlier.
I think that the US supremacy really started during WWII, when Britain was too busy, and broke, to keep up.
Of course, the British government did an amazingly skillful job of screwing up the British aeronautical industry in the postwar decades. Reading some of the aircraft histories here, for example of the TSR.2, is both fascinating and depressing.
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 7): Fascinating -- I'm surprised they didn't give us the technology as we were close allies, and we gave them lots of stuff.
While at this remove of time things seem simple, in actuality technology transfer between allies during WWII was by no means simple and straightforward. If nothing else, there's the whole ownership thing. If you give it away, how will you then make money on what you have developed. They all knew there would be an "after the war" and that ordinary business dealings would resume.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Vc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1381 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6955 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 7): Fascinating -- I'm surprised they didn't give us the technology as we were close allies, and we gave them lots of stuff.
During the war and just afterwards there was a mutual sharing of information agreement between the UK and The USA.
However the Americans appeared to consider it to be a one way agreement,ie from UK to USA, but not the other way around. The jet engine and the Miles M52 , with it's all moving tailplane, were two examples where the total info was given to the USA.
After that the Brits became a bit more careful, however it is all history now.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13329 posts, RR: 64 Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6942 times:
Quoting Vc10 (Reply 9): However the Americans appeared to consider it to be a one way agreement,ie from UK to USA, but not the other way around. The jet engine and the Miles M52 , with it's all moving tailplane, were two examples where the total info was given to the USA.
Don't forget about the "Tubealloy" programme and the cavity magnetron.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6882 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 10): Don't forget about the "Tubealloy" programme and the cavity magnetron.
Indeed. And to go with the magnetron, the PPI, first demonstrated in Germany but first production version in the UK. Not to mention the minor detail of the engine powering the later Marks of Mustang. That had a royalty arrangement, but nobody seems to know how much was paid.
I wonder where the US got its first jet engines from.
Quoting Vc10 (Reply 9): After that the Brits became a bit more careful, however it is all history now.
I think that happened when the US pulled the plug on nuclear secrets. Not that it did a great deal apart from irritating the UK at a time when its dollar debt prevented it from getting very irritated.
Didn't we also "lend" some German aerospace experts to the US after the war, never to see them again?
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8): Of course, the British government did an amazingly skillful job of screwing up the British aeronautical industry in the postwar decades
Successive governments of both colours, I might add.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, RR: 66 Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6817 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8): Of course, the British government did an amazingly skillful job of screwing up the British aeronautical industry in the postwar decades. Reading some of the aircraft histories here, for example of the TSR.2, is both fascinating and depressing.
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6787 times:
One thing that I wonder was in 1942 to 1944 the USN was developing a ramjet-powered supersonic missile to stop the Kamikaze problems...
I remember seeing a picture of the design and it had an inlet that appeared to be a multi-shock set-up (It actually looked similar to an early US Navy Guided-Missle used on the Long-Beach among others). How did we get the technology to develop that without a supersonic wind-tunnel?
ThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1634 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6749 times:
Get real, people.
The Brits gave us the entire model for modern ATC in the paradigm of Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain.
Remember that the next time a Center (Sector Station) gives you a radar "steer" command and a "squawk" code.
It would be more fun if, instead of telling us to "stop squawk," they would still use the Battle of Britain phrase of "kill your parrot."
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6733 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 12): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
Of course, the British government did an amazingly skillful job of screwing up the British aeronautical industry in the postwar decades
checkmark Successive governments of both colours, I might add.
Maybe for Non-av, but a thread on whether the Tories or the Socialists stuffed it up more could be interesting. Then again, you would have to allow BOAC and BEA to be put up as Aunt Sallies too.
Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 15): Battle of Britain phrase of "kill your parrot."
I wonder if this would now be "Switch to Norwegian Blue" in memory of the Late Parrot once owned by M Python.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13329 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6701 times:
Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 15): Remember that the next time a Center (Sector Station) gives you a radar "steer" command and a "squawk" code.
The modern ATC transponder is a direct descendant of the British invented identification friend/foe system, which was introduced during the Battle of Britain to stop trigger happy anti aircraft gunners from shooting down their own aircraft.
Hypersonic From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6561 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 7):
Fascinating -- I'm surprised they didn't give us the technology as we were close allies, and we gave them lots of stuff.
The following parragraph is not usually contended?
"In 1944, design work was considered 90% complete and Miles was told to go ahead with the construction of three prototype M.52s. Later that year, the Air Ministry signed an agreement with the United States to exchange high-speed research and data. The Bell Aircraft company was given all of the drawings and research on the M.52, but the U.S. reneged on the agreement and no data was forthcoming in return."
This is why the USA broke the manned sound barrier 1st in the Bell X-1
(I say manned, as the German V-2 Rockets were Ballistic Missiles, that had a velocity of approx 5,200 feet per second, thats nearly a mile per sec! or exceeding Mach 4 !!!)
The British government dropped their trousers in offering whole moving tail plane technology that solved the transonic control issue, which was applied to the X-1. - The M.52s was surreptitiously kept on the ground, to allow the US the glory of breaking the sound barrier in a manned aircraft - Thanks for the war help perhaps?
Then along came Sandy's & shafted our Aircraft industry.
In answer to the original 'afterburner' question, the M.52 was to have had a form of Afterburner as well.
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6524 times:
Interestingly, the XP-86 (F-86 prototype) actually broke the sound-barrier 13-days before the X-1 did (10/01/47).
This isn't exactly common-knowledge, but it's true. The pilot who did it, George Welch (who was one of the two pilots to manage to get his airplane into the air during Pearl Harbor out of Wheeler Field) actually wrote about his un-authorized dive (the USAF wanted them to wait until the X-1 broke the sound-barrier first) it in his logbook, and described a phenomenon known as "mach jump". Additionally, there were reports of a loud bang (sonic boom) in the area that day.
The F-86 with it's highly-swept wings could break the sound-barrier in a dive without too much difficulty -- stab trim in combination of elevator were all that were needed. The stabilator were added later after the X-1 as it made transonic penetration even easier and increased maximum G's in dogfighting.
FTOHIST From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 73 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6270 times:
This is a subject that I've been very interested in but have not made much headway in gathering information.....
Since it seems no one is quite certain who INVENTED the afterburner, then how about which were the first airplanes to fly with reheat? Since I know more about U.S. technology, then I will say that the Vought F6U Pirate with its Westinghouse J34 was the first American (production) aircraft to fly with an afterburner installed, in 1947. Lockheed publicized that the XF-90 was the first USAF aircraft to fly with afterburners (in 1949), and that airplane used the J34 as well. The first USAF aircrarft produced in any number to use the afterburner was the Northrop F-89, powered by the GE/Allison J35, although the Lockheed F-94 is a close second.
From what I can gather, all of the above airplanes used afterburners designed and produced by companies other than engine manufacturers (usually Solar for U.S.-made engines). I believe the first American engine to have an afterburner designed and built by the engine manufacturer was the GE J47-17.
I'd be interested to know similar afterburner history of the rest of the world's airpowers, such as the British (besides the unverified article on Wikipedia), and if their timetables were roughly the same as the U.S. I've read that the Germans were looking into installing afterburners on the Jumo engines for the Me-262, but I don't think that project ever got a chance to fly.
25 Wingscrubber: Blackbird, I think the distinction is that gravity helped the F-86, the Bell X-1 managed Mach 1 and beyond under its own power.
27 Mayor: Years ago, I thought I read where a P-38 exceeded the speed of sound, in a dive, but since that doesn't count and it was really quite accidental, nev
28 Blackbird: Mayor, I never heard anything about a P-38 breaking the sound barrier by accident. That isn't to say that it didn't happen. What year was this in? Sta
29 Wingscrubber: The bloody labour party caused the TSR-2 to be cancelled. I can't remember who was PM at the time... it's before I was around, but basically, the mone
30 Blackbird: When did the Labour Party get in? Blackbird
31 Starlionblue: Full story here: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.php. Very interesting stuff.
33 Pihero: Sorry to intervene into British politics, but that's a rather short-sighted statement : The demise of British aircraft manufacturing (almost, I shoul
34 Blackbird: Interestingly, I thought the Tory and Labour parties were different entities, in fact opposing entities? Blackbird
35 Starlionblue: Damned full stop at the end. Here is a better one http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.php Tory is not a party. It has denoted any nu
36 Jetlagged: What's interesting about the TSR2 cancellation is that the aircraft which was going to be bought in its place, supposedly off the shelf and therefore
37 Starlionblue: Wasn't there some interference rumored around Phantom for the UK? http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/history.html Or perhaps that was Fl
38 VC10: If my memory serves me correctly wasn't the TSR2 the delivery system for a British designed and built stand-off bomb, which was cancelled making the
39 David L: Neither flavour of government was innocent in that matter. Hmm... hazy memories of the F-104 allegedly playing a part in the cancellation of the Saun
40 Starlionblue: Indeed. Luckily one of the prototypes is still around at Duxford.
41 VC10: The way I remember it that there was a NATO requirement for a fighter aircraft which could climb very quickly so as to intercept Russian high altitud
42 David L: That's roughly the story I remember but I didn't read the Wikipedia article carefully enough. Thanks!
43 Bengan: Sorry, the early Tunnan lacked an afterburner, it was introduced on the J29F in 1954. The afterburner however was a completely Swedish design, built
44 Baroque: Opposing each other is compulsory. After that has been done, engaging brain is optional. Sticks another pin in his wax effigy of D Sandys.
45 Jetlagged: The Labour government took a lot of flak over the cancellation of the TSR2, but in hindsight the aircraft was already a white elephant. I wasn't awar
46 Blackbird: Why did the Labour party take flak over the cancellation of the TSR-2? If I recall the Conservatives were at the helm then? From what I read, the Cons
47 Jetlagged: TSR2 was cancelled in 1965, after Labour came to power. They didn't stay in power the whole time until 1979 either. Power changed hands between Labou
48 Blackbird: Jetlagged, Do you think the Conservatives would have made the same decision? (To cancel the TSR-2) The 'White Paper' was issued under their term in po
49 Mayor: If I recall, it was sometime during the war years. It was just something I read, years ago and the way my memory is, nowadays, who knows?
50 Jetlagged: The 1957 White Paper was largely forgotten by then, though the effects lingered on. People had realised how ill conceived it was. Had the Conservativ
51 Jetlagged: They may have got close to Mach 1 testing the P-38's compressibility problems and the dive recovery flaps solution, but it's unlikely they managed to
52 Blackbird: Jetlagged, Regardless of it's effects, did the the conservatives or the labour party issue the White Paper? So it would have been cancelled or would n
53 Jetlagged: Conservative (1957) I don't know, just offering an opinion. No idea, all I know is they had a problem with compressibility so were doing high speed d
54 Mayor: " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Li...tning This could be what I was thinking about.
55 SkySurfer: I always thought it was De Havilland that were the first to produce an engine that had 'aftrerburner' on it...my memory isn't that good but i remember
Sponsor Message: 
From Chile, joined Jun 2004, 1277 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 911 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 834 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1381 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13329 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
As already pointed out, you might want to look a little deeper into that!
Successive governments of both colours, I might add.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
