Which WWIIcountry is in the frontier of the aerospace?

[DAVIDICUS]

Electronic warfare?

Not sure about WWII but I think you guys also have the edge in numbers of tabloid newspapers aka "print media warfare."

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes electronic warfare, the use of systems to aid you or to jam your oponent's use of such systems, or even to jam your opponent's jamming of your systems..........

[plan_D]

The Rolls Royce Nene was not fitted to any operational aircraft during the war, I know. Nor was the engine that was apparently giving out 7,700 lbs of thrust, not proven of course.

However the Nene did see service after the war in the MiG-15, the fighter that gave the F-86 a lot of trouble in Korea. As well as being built in the Commonwealth, America, USSR and France. I would also like to see your source for the power output, in fact more than one source, because I've always read the Nene as being bench-tested in October 1944 at 22.3 kN (2,270 kg / 5,000 lb) thrust.

If we're going into firsts as the idea of lead, then Britain wins hand down in the jet engine case. After all, the jet engine was patented by a Briton, Frank Whittle.

If not for the British then America, Germany, Russia, France or anyone would never have had the jet engine [basing it off firsts as the only one with a clue].

The MetroVic F.2 was Britain's first axial flow engine, first bench-tested in December 1941. By November 1942 it was producing 8 kN (815 kg / 1,800 lb) of thrust. This lead to the F.9 Sapphire which was one of the most used engines of the 1950s.

I will admit the British learnt a few things off the Germans during World War 2 in jet engine technology but the British were leading and lead for a very long time. In fact, I'll still say they lead now. That is why the US wanted Rolls Royce in on the F-35 engine.

And on the final point, America had nothing to do with the design technology of German or British engine designs aside from the influence on Britain to become more powerful. Their economic advancements and massive economic strength have nothing to do with this design technology discussion.

[DAVIDICUS]

I know what it is. I just view it as tangentally related to aerospace.

[delcyros]

Umm, there is stuff to discuss.
I never disagreed that the Nene wasn´t a great engine. I stated it´s advantages over other engines. The RD 45 which drove the MiG-15 and the VK-1 which drove the MiG 15 Bis are based on this engine. But also are the soviet axial engines (beside of TR-1), from which a number are based on the BMW-018. So derivates of both engines have been used in the mid 50´s for combat aircraft. However, the Nene was capable to do 5000 lbs of thrust and the BMW-018 was capable to do 7.700 lbs (while it weights three times as much). Give me two days to submit a list of sources, which proove that the Nene developed 5000 lbs late in 1945 and not in 1944. I just have books mostly and don´t tend to source the net that frequently...
Frank Whittle wasn´t the first to patent a jet engine, this goes either to the french Lorin or to a rumanian. However, why do you think that Ohain was based on Whittle? Or that they have anything in common, regarding their efforts in jet technology? Both worked independently on engines. I am sure, that even without Whittle you would see the first jet driven plane in late 1939 (He-17, that´s why the germans had a time advantage, not the british. As for the F-2/1, which wasn ´t very statisfying (compared to centrifugal design of it´s days). The F-9 saphire is a good engine, but has nothing to do with this post. I do not denie that the british engine R&D was great (..and it is today, no doubt ), just tried to outline that you cannot simplify it.
And at least of course have industrial basics much to do with this topic. The US were years ahead in this. And Germany suffered in adaequate heat resistant alloys to overcome the shortcomings of their early designs.

[wmaxt]

The Germans were the leaders in Rocketry.

However the first Jet engine flown was by a Frenchman named Conada in 1909 (I think). He was an experimeter not an avaitor so when it did start flying he put it down in a landing better described as a crash and destroyed the air craft.

In WWII I think the Germans were ahead in the engine department but behind in the metalurgy required to make reliable jets.

wmaxt

[delcyros]

I agree in this absolutely, wmaxt.
By the way, there would be some barriers before space first (while the A-4 got pretty close to the frontier of space, knocking on it´s doors). First off there is the problem with breaking the sound barrier in a maned plane. I would vote either for the british Miles M.52 or the german DFS 346 to break Mach 1 in level flight.

[plan_D]

The British were the lead in efficient engine design in World War 2 for the Nene alone. Even if it wasn't until April 1945 that it was bench-tested at 5000 lbs it still beat anything the Germans had on power save for this, 7,700 lbs thrust engine you mention.
Even then the German engine had no chance of being fitted any aircraft as it was too big and remarkably inefficient. The F.9 has quite a lot to do with this discussion if we're stretching it beyond World War 2 but from WW2 development. The F.9 was one of the most widely used jet engines in the 50s, it was developed from the F.2 not any German engine design.

There's no denying that the Germans were leaders in rocketry.

[Sal Monella]

The Germans were also ahead in their understanding of fluid dynamics and swept wing technology. That and their advancement in rocketry made them the clear leaders in aerospace.

[plan_D]

Rocketry didn't develop into an aerospace project though. It became a space project.

The swept wings I do give to the Germans but the swept wing only really takes any effect around Mach 1. I personally think the jet engine was the most influential thing on modern aerospace technology.

[Glider]

There is one aerodynamic advance which the British were investigating during the war and that is the flying tail which was being flown in 1942 on I think was a Miles Master testbed. I mention this as the USA claimed credit for this advance many years later as it enabled them to break the sound barrier many years later.
I do admit though that we didn't put it on an operational aircraft.

An aside. There have been a number of comments about the lack of machine tools in the UK during the war which I can certainly believe. In 1973 I was being trained as an Articifer in the Royal Navy and we were using lathes ect which were clearly markd as 'Wartime tolarances only'. When asked, we were told that these were only used for training or on land based military equipment.
When you hear how unreliable british armour was in WW2 you can believe it.

[Nonskimmer]

An interesting fact that I knew nothing about.

Good to meet a fellow sailor.

[Sal Monella]

"Rocketry didn't develop into an aerospace project though. "



Yeah, I guess the rocket powered X plane projects were a big waste of time and money that added little useful knowledge to the field of aerospace engineering. (The X-1, for instance was the first aircraft to break the sound barrier in controlled, level flight in 1947)

The early X projects borrowed heavily from German knowledge and added immensely to our knowledge in the aerospace field.

"I personally think the jet engine was the most influential thing on modern aerospace technology."

Well, perhaps the British had "better" jet engines but the Germans and Americans did have jet engines. No one was utilizing swept wing technology except the Germans. No one else had anything resembling a operational guidance system for rockets which the Germans had. Finally, German rocket motors weren't just better but miles ahead of anyone else.

[evangilder]

A word about rocketry. One of the pioneers that is often forgotten is Robert Goddard:

Robert H. Goddard began his rocket experiments in 1915 with solid propellants but his calculations showed he could achieve much better performance using liquid propellants. He therefore switched to liquid propellants in 1921. He originally thought of pumps to pump in the propellants into the combustion chamber but he initially did not have success with these. He therefore sought to test a basic liquid propellant system to see if the principle worked, and if possible to achieve a flight.

Finally, on January 20, 1926, he successfully tested a liquid propellant motor in a static test in which the motor produced more thrust than the rocket's weight. He next set out to adapt the motor to a flight rocket. He wanted to cover the rocket with a streamlined cover and to include a parachute for the rocket's recovery but soon realized these features would add too much weight to the rocket and that it might not fly.

Goddard therefore left off the covering and parachute. On the day of the launch, Goddard was assisted by his wife, Esther, as the official photographer; Percy Roope, an Assistant Physics Professor at Clark University where Goddard also taught Physics; and Henry Sachs, a machinist at the University who had helped make the rocket.

Goddard and Sachs loaded the rocket while Sachs lighted the torch and ignited the pyrotechnic igniter. Goddard controlled the valves. At first, when the combustion was started, the rocket would not rise because the thrust was lower than the weight of the rocket. Then, when it exceeded the weight and reached an estimated 18 lbs, the rocket first climbed a few inches then shot up but but was not that stable. (In addition to proving that liquid fuel rockets can fly, Goddard also realized that his "nose-drive" design was inherently unstable and in his rockets the motor was placed at the base of the rocket.)

The historic flight of March 16, 1926 was not reported immediately. In fact it was not known to the general public for a decade. Since 1917, Goddard's experiments had been funded by the Smithsonian Institution though he did not wish the results to be publicized until he had achieved more substantial results. Thus, contrary to popular belief, Goddard's flight of March 16, 1926 did not immediately open up the way to the development of modern rocketry.

Rather, other rocket theorists and experimenters independently developed their own rockets without detailed knowledge of Goddard's work. In 1931, the German experimenter Johannes Winkler successfully flew a liquid-propellant rocket which was then believed to have been the first to fly, but this misconception was later corrected.

The development of modern liquid fuel rocketry was therefore the result of the work of several experimenters, many working independently of each other, though Goddard was afterwards recognized as technically the first to develop such systems.

Goddard's name was well known to the rocket experimenters of the 1920's-40's but due to his secretive nature and reluctance to share his work, which was very advanced for the times, his impact upon main developments was limited.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/dsh/...RM-RHG1926.htm

[plan_D]

The rocket didn't develop the aeronautical world, no. The only reason the X-1 had a rocket was because the jet engine wasn't powerful enough. The breaking of the sound barrier was little but an achievement to prove that we could do it. The technology that was required was already there, the only lacking thing was a jet engine powerful enough.

Rocket powered planes are pointless and a waste of money. They have little control and are only for speed purposes. What's the point? The X-15 is to never fly again because all that can be done has been done, and little has developed from it.

The Americans did actually have a limited idea on the swept wings but very little, and little testing but it was still there. Even then, the swept wing is only the revolution it was around Mach 1. The jet engine keeps on pushing the aeronautical world further and further. Aircraft would be no where near what they are today without the development of the jet.