What Were the British Thinking?

Kintarō Hattori

Reading various aviation books by British authors they mention that towards the end of WW2 and just after the government performed a number of strange actions which as far as I'm aware were never satisfactorily explained, even to this day.

During the war they sent a number of their secret Nene jet engines to both the US and Russia. Sending them to the US I can understand but why to Russia? What did Britain think they would gain from this.

As we all know each country was working towards a supersonic test plane and it was the Bell X-1 which eventually flew first. However Miles a British company were developing the M.52 which was looking very promising and by all accounts would have beaten the X-1 into the air. However as work was progressing the Miles company were ordered to stop work and to hand over their research to the Americans who were supposed to share their research with the British but who ultimately never did.


Does anyone know what the reason for these acts were?

kona

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Reading various aviation books by British authors they mention that towards the end of WW2 and just after the government performed a number of strange actions which as far as I'm aware were never satisfactorily explained, even to this day.

During the war they sent a number of their secret Nene jet engines to both the US and Russia. Sending them to the US I can understand but why to Russia? What did Britain think they would gain from this.

As we all know each country was working towards a supersonic test plane and it was the Bell X-1 which eventually flew first. However Miles a British company were developing the M.52 which was looking very promising and by all accounts would have beaten the X-1 into the air. However as work was progressing the Miles company were ordered to stop work and to hand over their research to the Americans who were supposed to share their research with the British but who ultimately never did.


Does anyone know what the reason for these acts were?

Brits swapped jet tech for nukes with the yanks.

Have no idea about the russians, could possibly part of a treaty or something. Plenty of messerscmits that the russians and yanks probably had studied anyways.

They had a documentary about the X-1 a while ago thats where I got the jets for nukes thing.

Fratton Fred

The simple answer is that the british Air ministry were somewhat stupid when it came to the Jet Engine.

fairly good history of it here, although it doesn't answer your question http://www.midlandairmuseum.co.uk/jet.php

An old boss of mine had a picture of this famous statement by the ministry on his wall. Over it was scribbled "Good thing I was too stupid to know this" and signed Frank Whittle. Whether or not it was a copy of an authentic document is not known, but a very good sentiment.

In its present state, and even considering the improvements possible when adopting the higher temperatures proposed for the immediate future, the gas turbine engine could hardly be considered a feasible application to airplanes mainly because of the difficulty in complying with the stringent weight requirements imposed by aeronautics.
The present internal combustion engine equipment used in airplanes weighs about 1.1 pounds per horsepower, and to approach such a figure with a gas turbine seems beyond the realm of possibility with existing materials

Steyr

I watched a programme on tv about the Brits handing over Jet technology to the Russians over a game of pool. AFAIK it was on channel 4.

kona

Steyr wrote: »

I watched a programme on tv about the Brits handing over Jet technology to the Russians over a game of pool. AFAIK it was on channel 4.

:D:D:D

The british got really dumb. Some of their cold war decisions were quite "special"

Spending all that money on the V-planes, only for them to become obsolete in a few years after them being in service:rolleyes:

But giving over jet technology over a game of pool must rank with the most retarded decision of all time.

cml387

Also I seem to recall that Britain banned high speed flight research after Geoffrey DeHavilland was killed when his jet crashed in a trial in a DH Swallow.

The innovation that was "borrowed" by the US was the moving tail plane added the Bell X1.Up to that they were using a convention tail plane with
standard control surfaces.At high speed this tended to twist the tailplane in the opposite direction causing the dreaded control reversal syndrome (i.e push the stick up and the plane goes down).

cml387

kona wrote: »

Brits swapped jet tech for nukes with the yanks.

Have no idea about the russians, could possibly part of a treaty or something. Plenty of messerscmits that the russians and yanks probably had studied anyways.

They had a documentary about the X-1 a while ago thats where I got the jets for nukes thing.

Britain collaborated extensively with the US (and via Klaus Fuchs with the Russians) on the Manhatten project, and were the frozen out by the US when congress passed the McMahon act.

vulcan57

As has been mentioned already, the Jet engines were very new and their full potential wasn't really recognised at that stage in time. Also don't forget that during WWII the Russians, Yanks along with the British were all fighting a common foe so exchanges of technology, to some extent anyway, were being undertaken in both directions.

EchoIndia

kona wrote: »

:D:D:D

The british got really dumb. Some of their cold war decisions were quite "special"

Spending all that money on the V-planes, only for them to become obsolete in a few years after them being in service:rolleyes:

Hindsight, as they say, has 20/20 vision. Look at the money the US put into the development of multiple weapons systems in the first couple of decades after WW2, only for much of this to retired in favour of newer equipment after quite short periods of service.

The V-bombers were actually quite advanced and had their genesis in the immediate post-war period. For example, design work on the Vulcan began in 1947 and it first flew in 1952. Since the type continued in frontline service as a bomber until 1982 and then for a couple more years in its K.2 tanker version, I think you'd have to say that the taxpayer got pretty good value from the design. Similarly the Victor tankers flew on in that role until they were in effect worn out by the ealy 1990s. The fact that ground-to-air missiles would put an end to penetration at normal jet cruising altitudes may seem self-evident now, but it was not when these aircraft were designed and brought into service. You can argue that going for three V-bomber types involved duplication of effort and probably higher costs than if just one design had been selected, but it would seem that this was not a major consideration during the rush to build up forces in the 1950s. In any case, by the early 1960s the more conservative Valiant turned out to have fatigue problems so it's just as well that it was not selected as the sole British V-bomber to be purchased.

kona

EchoIndia wrote: »

Hindsight, as they say, has 20/20 vision. Look at the money the US put into the development of multiple weapons systems in the first couple of decades after WW2, only for much of this to retired in favour of newer equipment after quite short periods of service.

The V-bombers were actually quite advanced and had their genesis in the immediate post-war period. For example, design work on the Vulcan began in 1947 and it first flew in 1952. Since the type continued in frontline service as a bomber until 1982 and then for a couple more years in its K.2 tanker version, I think you'd have to say that the taxpayer got pretty good value from the design. Similarly the Victor tankers flew on in that role until they were in effect worn out by the ealy 1990s. The fact that ground-to-air missiles would put an end to penetration at normal jet cruising altitudes may seem self-evident now, but it was not when these aircraft were designed and brought into service. You can argue that going for three V-bomber types involved duplication of effort and probably higher costs than if just one design had been selected, but it would seem that this was not a major consideration during the rush to build up forces in the 1950s. In any case, by the early 1960s the more conservative Valiant turned out to have fatigue problems so it's just as well that it was not selected as the sole British V-bomber to be purchased.

I love the V- bombers , they just for some reason amaze me, I think they are the most amazing military planes. I agree with everything you say, but their role as delivery for the british nuclear deterrant was removed in the 60s when the british got submarines launching their Nukes on warheads.

The role of tanker is usually the job for planes in their twilight, today we have KC-10 and the 707s of the USAF.

At least the Vulcan got to see combat in the falklands and Gulf War 1.

Amazing Aircraft. However was only relevant for a few years as a Nuclear deterrant.

cml387

The Vulcan is a beautiful aircraft, but the whole issue of Britain's nuclear deterrant is very debatable.
A simple question to ask is - can you consider any circumstances (and this applies to the 1950's as well as today),where Britain would need to use a nuclear option without the Americans using their's,And if there isn't, then the British deterrant is irrelevant.
However, to avoid thread creep, back to the OP's point.
British engineering and design after the war was superb but lacking in one major factor, money.
Groundbreaking aircraft such as the Comet were designed and built in Heath Roinson conditions, and fatally for the Comet, rushed into service without proper testing.
Unfortunately(and I speak as an admirer of British engineering achievements) the torch was passed to the Americans from 1941.

EchoIndia

kona wrote: »

The role of tanker is usually the job for planes in their twilight, today we have KC-10 and the 707s of the USAF.

At least the Vulcan got to see combat in the falklands and Gulf War 1.

The USAF does not have 707 tankers. It has had the similar KC-135 since the late 1950s and, while it is old, it can't be said to be in its twilight years, since there is no replacement yet on order.

The Vulcan was well retired by GW1 - perhaps you mean the Victor, which saw service in that conflict as well as in the 1982 Falklands War.

scudzilla

kona wrote: »

I love the V- bombers , they just for some reason amaze me, I think they are the most amazing military planes. I agree with everything you say, but their role as delivery for the british nuclear deterrant was removed in the 60s when the british got submarines launching their Nukes on warheads.

The role of tanker is usually the job for planes in their twilight, today we have KC-10 and the 707s of the USAF.

At least the Vulcan got to see combat in the falklands and Gulf War 1.

Amazing Aircraft. However was only relevant for a few years as a Nuclear deterrant.

If you like Vulcans then this book is a must

http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/2391220/Vulcan-607/Product.html

The full true story of the record breaking Falkland Islands bombing mission, an excellent read

Kintarō Hattori

vulcan57 wrote: »

As has been mentioned already, the Jet engines were very new and their full potential wasn't really recognised at that stage in time. Also don't forget that during WWII the Russians, Yanks along with the British were all fighting a common foe so exchanges of technology, to some extent anyway, were being undertaken in both directions.

I'll agree that while they would have realized it was sensible to fight against your common enemy, both Britain and America were weary of Russia's intentions once the war would be over. So I can't really see the arguement that it was beneficial for Britain to ship over a load of very secret jet engines to the Russians. To the Americans yes, to the Russians........... hmnnn I don't think so.

Dacian

EchoIndia wrote: »

The USAF does not have 707 tankers. It has had the similar KC-135 since the late 1950s and, while it is old, it can't be said to be in its twilight years, since there is no replacement yet on order.

The B707 started as an answer to a USAF requirment for an aerial tanker. This became the KC-135. Think about 900 were ordered by the USAF. From the initial design Boeing produced the 'Dash 80' which was the prototype B707 as a passenger jet. It has a slightly larger fuselage to accomodate passengers.

Dacian

To continue on the point by the OP: The British in the past have voluntarily given up on several areas where they were leading mostly for financial reasons. The F-104 Starfighter was a very popular and capable interceptor. The British firm Saunders-Roe however has developed probably a better interceptor in the SR.177 which was jet AND rocket powered. The rocket engine was used for the final dash to target. Thus it had better speed and climb stats,vital for interception of inbound Soviet bombers. It was planned for the RAF, Royal Navy and the Luftwaffe in the late 1950's.

However politicking by the US (along with bribes by Lockheed) helped to get the SR.177 axed by the cost-cutting Brits and the F-104 chosen as the main NATO interceptor.Strange for an aircraft which had no all-weather radar system to be so common in Northern Europe! Over 2000 Starfighters were built.


The Brits did it again with the Harrier. Hawker designed the P.1127 Kestrel which was the prototype VTOL aircraft. However they had also developed a more capable supersonic version, the P.1154. This was to be a VTOL aircraft which was comparable to the F-4 Phantom. However yet again it was cancelled in the mid 60's. Hawker then developed the Kestrel into what became the Hawker Siddely Harrier. And the RAF ordered F-4's from the USA. A program on Discovery recently remarked that the F-35B is what the P.1154 could have been, 40 years ago.
Discovery channel is great!