Talk:Frank Whittle

"Co-inventor"

I think the use of the term "CO-inventor" is incorrect. This implies that Whittle worked with von Ohain to develop the jet engine, which is of course not the case. Both men worked independently, and so both men invented it, not co-invented it. Graham 00:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

changed this statement in articleSc147 03:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whittle applied for a patent on the jet engine in 1930 and it was granted in 1932 which means that the informtion became publicly available from 1932 - the Air Ministry didn't regard the idea as one that should be classified, so it was published as an ordinary patent and this patent was sent to Germany by the German Embassy in that year. This patent could also have been read by anyone anywhere in the world who was interested in the subject and who could be bothered looking for patents on it - that's the whole point of patents, to make ideas publicly available so that others can contribute to the idea and the inventor can benefit financially from his work because he has legal protection for his idea. BTW, Whittle's patent was allowed to lapse later when he coudn't afford to renew it, but he was still the first to patent a turbojet engine - most theoretical gas turbines before Whittle had been envisaged as being of turboprop types.

Whittle also had an engine running first.

Von Ohain deserves credit for his work on development of the turbojet but supporters of his would have to prove that he had never seen Whittle's patent to claim co-inventorship, rather in the same way as Newton and Leibniz both independently discovered differential calculus without knowledge of the other's work.

Von Ohain stated that there would have been no WWII if Whittles design had been taken seriously by the Air Ministry when he first took it to them. As the Germans would have lost any chance of air superiority. This would indicate that Von Ohain did'nt dispute that Whittle was first to invent the Jet engine, and by a good few years too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.156.153 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

194.6.112.192 11:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, this was me before I registered. Ian Dunster (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NASA

A question: How could Whittle be speaking to a NASA conference in 1946, as stated in the picture caption, when the agency wasn't founded until 1958?

gershwinrb 12:14, 18 May 2005

This makes no sense...

"In addition to being useful at high altitudes, the engine essentially had one moving part, the compressor-drive shaft-turbine assembly. Reliability, weight and cost should all be lower for such a design."

Why whould anyone work on a less reliable design?

Facts mixed up

The first jet engine was invented NOT by Frank Whittle, but by the romanian Henri Coanda, who flew his jet engine wooden aircraft in 1910. He is also known for the Coanda Effect (fluids in movement that attach to a hard surface).

see it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Coanda

That wasn't a proper jet engine, it was a rudimentary hybrid piston engine (Thermojet). Whittle and Ohain developed the first proper jet engines. G-Man * 21:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless Henri Coanda's engine is the original jet engine no matter how it was or will be improved in the future.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.31.122 (talk) 7:56 am, Today (UTC−5)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.156.153 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 

Coanda's engine is a type of jet engine (as is a rocket), but not a turbojet engine, which is what Whittle and Ohain developed. - BilCat (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So if you admit that Coanda's engine is a "jet engine" then the statement that F. Whittle together with Hans von Ohain would be the fathers of jet propulsion becomes untrue since they did not made the first "jet engine" altough no one can say if they were not inspired by Coanda's engine. To compare that engine with a rocket to support your statement is just wrong and biased as "jet engine" means just that: an engine that produces a jet. A rocket by itself is far from being an engine.

A turbine powered by a piston engine is certainly not a pure jet engine, and that is all that Coanda came up with in 1910. A jet engine has only one moving part, and THAT is the sheer Genius of Whittle.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.31.122 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Whittle is not the inventor of "jet", but of "turbojet", and even here there is a discussion betwen him and Ohain. Many aviation historians consider Coanda-1910 as the first jet, so is very debatable and is not correct to say that Whittle is the first one with a jet. Is correct to say just "first turbojet", but even here is debatable as Ohain seems to be at least on the same position for the first turbojet (after all he made first a working one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.192.89 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop spamming your ridiculous and unsupportable claim that Coanda built or flew a jet engine in 1910. That claim flies no better than Coanda did. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Dingley, as you know there are hundreds of sources, mostly very serious ones, who said that Coanda invented the jet. Your rather pathetic attempt to contradict this is usseles. Whittle is the second (after Ohain) inventor of the turbojet, which is another type of jet. This article need to be write in a more neutral point of view and present both views, similar with Coanda-1910 article. Or, if you really wish to consider Whittle as first in someway, is need to be used just the correct term "turbojet". But even here is debatable he was first, as Ohain made the first turbojet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.198.42 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

as you know there are hundreds of sources, mostly very serious ones, who said that Coanda invented the jet. - wow, could have fooled me - now let me get this straight, all the thousands of jet airliners around the world are powered by engines invented by Henri Coanda? Well if they are powered by engines that are in any way descended from Conada's concept, then all I can say is that the next time you get on an airliner, 'rather you than me'. Luckily, any airliner powered by any of Coanda's engines is likely to be a very small one, so when it staggers off the end of the runway (assuming it's able to get that far) unable to get in the air, any casualties are likely to be very small in number. I'm afraid that when mentioning Coanda's so-called 'jet engine' the phrase; 'industrial hair-dryer' springs to mind.

Oh, and BTW - Whittle patented the engine first (in 1930/31) and he also had one running first.

.... oh, and one more thing - the only high-temperature material available to anyone trying to build a working gas turbine in Coanda's time was stainless steel, as the British had to develop most of the materials used in early jet engines themselves in the 1920s-1940s - Nimonic, Hiduminium, etc.

... and another thing (LOL!) - in 1929/30 the British were building this - Rolls-Royce R - I'd add an example of a Romanian-built aero engine but I can't think of even one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.76.45 (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  The fact that Whittle's engine was NOT the first jet engine still stands even though you're insisting on various technical aspects, your claim is clearly biased. Patents do not make a fact and technical improvement or developement of an existing invention (wich only happens thanks to the advancement of technology as a whole)  is NOT the invention itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.31.122 (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 

NPOV-check - Bias?

Well, I do see two problems with this article. First, the initial sentence is saying "Frank Whittle, [...] was a Royal Air Force officer who invented the jet engine.", while at the same time the article about Hans von Ohain states that von Ohain "was one of the inventors of jet propulsion." If the two guys truly worked independently of each other, and von Ohain convinced Whittle after the war that his work was truly independent (what should be enough for us), both should get the credit. The article about von Ohain seams more fair to me than the article about Whittle.

It never works that way in the world. For all we know there may be indirect ways that Ohain found out about Whittle's work that he may not even remember. Or not. The point is that it's impossible to prove that he didn't benefit from Whittle's patent; I doubt it in this case, but it's possible, and the inventor is the one that got there first. There's no bias in any normal sense of the word here.WolfKeeper 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, the next sentence in the article is much too much lurid to me: "Due to [...] lack of forsight on the part of the British Government in keeping sensitive patents secret, Hans von Ohain of Germany was able to beat him to production models, but Whittle's work and tireless efforts to produce his designs given official lack of interest are legendary.' This sentence is implying that von Ohain stole Whittle’s ideas because of lack of secrecy.

That's not how I read it, it says that he was able to get the resources faster to build a working engine. There's a big difference between an idea and a practical implementation of an idea.WolfKeeper 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, lurid terms like "tireless efforts" and "legendary" don’t belong in an encyclopaedia.

They can do if that is a reasonable interpretation of the situation, or many people are quoted as describing him like that.WolfKeeper 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I’m asking your for your opinion first before making any changes. What do you think about this? MikeZ 10:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should make it clear that von Ohain and Whittle's developments were in no way related. There is absolutely no reason to believe that von Ohain did not independantly come up with the idea, as did many other people (Franz, Griffiths, Jendasick for sure, more arguably Muller, the BMW team, etc). von Ohain did not see Whittle's patent until he attempted to file his own, and the patent examiner showed it to him. The two designs are somewhat different, and the examiner felt they different enough to grant von Ohain a patent anyway. Let us not forget that AA Griffiths had already built his testbed engine in 1927, but I don't see anyone claiming either of these guys ripped off his idea. Maury 22:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

After the War

In this section, the last statement of the quote:

"...became part-time from 1978 to 1979. The part time post enabled him to write a textbook on gas turbine thermodynamics. It was at this time that he met von Ohain..."

implies that Von Ohain met Sir Frank for the first time in the late 70s. However, Von Ohain himself says that he first met Whittle in 1966. Whittle gives an affirmative response. See p. 20 towards the bottom in the verbatim typescript of a two-day conference, An Encounter Between the Jet Engine Inventors, held at Wright-Patt in 1978: http://www.ascho.wpafb.af.mil/encounter/Chap1-20.htm The full transcript is available at http://www.ascho.wpafb.af.mil/encounter/encounter.htm Pages 19-20 also clarify when and how Von Ohain first learned of Whittle’s patent and when he learned that Whittle was actually working on a jet engine. I have not made any corrections in the main text.64.175.36.155 09:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's poorly worded. Fix away! Maury 13:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Useful references

For anyone wishing to read further on Whittle and von Ohain's early work, as well as the respective national efforts to get a turbojet engine into service, I can recommend:

Jet - The Story of a Pioneer by Sir Frank Whittle - Frederick Muller, London 1953

The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution by Edward W. Constant - Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1980.

Ian Dunster (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Refs and balance

Referring to web-based sources, the Midland Air Museum's Sir Frank Whittle Jet Heritage Centre display and the excellent Frank Whittle: Invention of the Jet (2004) by Andrew Nahum, I've passed through the article to add as many inline cites as I could where I thought they would be useful. However, I wasn't able to add any to the "Rolls-Royce" or "Continued development" sections, and hardly any to "Rover", so if anyone can oblige in these areas it would help complete the article. Also, there is no reason to doubt that the information at the Midland Air Museum's heritage display is reliable, but it would be difficult for most readers to verify any of it, therefore citing suitable written publications rather than the museum would be preferable.

My second point is regarding the balance of the article. There is no doubt that Whittle's claim to fame is his part in the creation of the jet engine which naturally demands prominence in the article, and is covered in some detail, but I think the article would benefit from the addition of further personal information not related to this aspect of his life and career. --Red Sunset 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional Infobox

I note the addition of another infobox which repeats much of the original information, plus a few extra details. I personally don't think it's necessary and makes the page look untidy. Having tried unsuccessfully to incorporate the additional details into the original infobox, and pending a good reason for its inclusion I'm inclined to remove the new box. Any comments? --Red Sunset 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the two boxes can not be joined up. I have moved it to the RAF section where it is more relevant, and perhaps tidier. Not that much is duplicated, I think. Some people do have two infoboxes which reflects two different spheres of notability: see also "Frank Kurtz". Snowman (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Snowman, it doesn't seem out of place now, especially with the duplicated info removed:-)--Red Sunset 21:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hart-Davis quote

There's no point in the following quote:

“	Whittle was an amazing chap. Tiny, stubborn, unstoppable – jet-propelled! It's amazing the impact his invention has had upon the world.	”
	— Adam Hart-Davis,

It adds no information, nor is Hart-Davis any kind of authority on Frank Whittle. If there are no substantive objections I will remove it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to see the quote removed. Snowman (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur; even though it is a fitting description. --Red Sunset 21:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

sirs, i was veary young when i first met frank whittle, when he told me off for violateing the moral code of invention. he explaind to me that he did not invent reaction propulsion, nor did he invent the turbine, no he invented the idia of useing a turbine not as a source of torque, but as a means of creating a JET of exhaust gass, that could be used for reaction propulsion. Sir Frank worked as senior le`asion between the USA and the UK well into the 60`s, and had a key roll in selling the HS1127 to the US marines, and his bringing Kelly Johnson to England, in the eariy 60`s resulted in the A11 and later SR71 A veary sick King George, asked Sir Fransis to help his daughter, Elizebeth, and i can assure you that he did, most dutyfully In the early days of HM Queen Elizebeth`s reign, we spoke of the New Elizebeathen era, and Fransis whittle, the "Buccaneer", would often be seen escourting the young Queen on less formal occasins.(ref..Elizebeth 1 and Fransis Drake) Dispite his many titles, Frank Wittle allways discribed him self as a pilot, and was proud of his allways being accepted by RAF pilots as one of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.79.227 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The above was written by Denis Thaddeus, known as little Denis i spent a large part of my early childhood with sir Frank, i first met him at a party held for me by the royal aironoutical society in the early 60`s,where he was a member. It was Barns Wallace who was so keen on us becoming friendsafter my novle way of useing his engine, to achive the "jump jet effect". It was after asking Frank wer there eny draw backs with the jet over the propeler, that we both looked for a way to bracke the plane. I was siiting in his car when i thought of reverse thrust. Sir fransis often took me to Kingston to meet Sid Camm, and we visited Bletchly all the time. There is so mutch more to Fransis Whittle then the jet, if only i was at liberty to speak i would gladley do so. Denis F Thaddeus....thaddeusdenis@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.8.175.205 (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Frank Whittle had his first patent issued in 1930, Von Ohain was only 19 years old at that time. Sir Frank Whittle invented the first successful Liquid Fuelled Jet Engine. If you watch the BBC 1 program 'The man who shrank the Globe' (19th May 2010) Captain Eric Brown, the last surviving pilot of the E28/39 stated that when the American's held Von Ohain and his workers for interegation after the War Von Ohain would not speak about Whittle's published patent but one of his fellow workers stated they were looking at it almost every day! Please do not forget the German's first jet was gas fuelled and was not a successful design. Further articals including original papers, the original Patent from 1936 and displays are available at Lutterworth Museum. 01455 284733(Lutterworthmuseum (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)).

further/Degree

Leo. re; line 47 edit. I changed 'further' to 'Degree' for the sake of accuracy & grammar. It was a Degree course, & that is the grammatically correct way to refer to it. Unless there is a factual objection, later this week I will re-write that sentence, as it's both inelegant & inaccurate in it's current form. Dick Holman 15:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Update- I use the WikiTweak Firefox extension, & it has been leaving the QuickiWiki spam on my edits. The feature is turned off now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archolman (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)