I saw Whittle's machine a few weeks ago at Air and Space. It was barely
recognizable as a jet engine.
On 2019-07-13 11:46, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
Indeed. The US initially appeared to have followed the lead of the
British in that regard. There was a lot to be learned about axial
compressors at the time. Centrifugal compressors were easier to design
and build. Even at that, comprises were made in building them due to
production machine limitations of the day. Take the successful Rolls
Royce Dart engine for example. The forward curved leading edges of the
compressor blades we made from a separate disk then stacked on the
base section. By the late 50s, parts like that were made in one piece.
Pattern making and tracing using hydraulically controlled machines
were general practice in the day. A lot of very skilled tradesmen
doing incredible things with what they had.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Henry Spencer
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 2:14 PM
To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: MSR reactors.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019, anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[early jets]
Axial compressors and variable stator compressor geometries were the
big contributors to the pressure ratio and efficiency increase.
Although mind you, the Me262's Jumo 004 engines had axial compressors.
Just not terribly good ones...
Henry
