The below reminiscences were prompted by Engineering Eye's reference to Parsons and Whittle in your September issue and by old controversies over the Whittle story which had been echoed by correspondents in earlier PE issues.
I feel there are some things that should be said and hope that you may agree.
Stan Gray (long retired)
Sir Charles Parsons – Sir Frank Whittle
Reminiscences of an Oldie
Engineering Eye is to be commended for “A call for more acknowledgement of the work of Sir Charles Parsons, the inventor of the steam turbine.” in the September PE, but to say that he “…has been eclipsed in the annals of history by Sir Frank Whittle and James Watt” is surely an unwarranted bit of crystal ball gazing.
Working at C A Parsons Ltd in the late thirties gave me a lasting esteem for the remarkable range of Sir Charles’ achievements in science and technology in the pursuit of his objectives and interests. Moving to the Royal Aircraft Establishment in 1942 I served at Farnborough or in Ministry departments until 1977, during which time I was witness to progress on the turbojet engine at Sir Frank’s Power Jets, the RAE and elsewhere.
Parsons and Whittle were men of different times, technical, cultural and political. Parsons began as a rather privileged premium apprentice, starting his turbine work and raising patents while working for an existing company, before founding his own. Whittle, a dedicated RAF man, starting as an apprentice proved himself a brilliant pilot with outstanding technical abilities and first developed his engine ideas as a Flight Cadet. Denied support at that time from both Government and industrial sources, he was encouraged to file for a patent in 1930, but had to wait six years for private backing to launch Power Jets Ltd.
Parsons was working on electrical generation to satisfy a booming demand, as were his competitors. His status as ‘inventor’ of the steam turbine is only true for a practical machine in the modern historical context and there are those who believe that his work on the high-speed generator was of greater significance. Whittle on the other hand was in direct competition with a large and powerful aero-engine industry which he persistently distrusted, fearing a ‘take-over. His studies had led him to the choice of the gas turbine as the aero-engine of the future. His subsequent flash of genius was to realise that the high throughput of such engines was capable of providing the required thrust by jet reaction, avoiding the limitations of propellers, so inventing the jet engine.
That publication of the thesis by Hermione S Giffard should re-awaken controversy over the invention issue is to be regretted. Though reviewing the development and production of turbojet aero-engines between 1936 and 1945, the thesis was presented as a “Dissertation…for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy” and starts with a lengthy analysis of formal academic theories and studies on invention, innovation etc. References to a “constructed inventor-hero” concept in relation to Whittle naturally sparked indignant protests, as aired in PE correspondence columns (April, May, June). Claims that the German work may have been inspired by the Whittle patent were also re-opened. The futility of over-emphasis on invention and priority is demonstrated by the 1921 French patent for a jet propulsion gas turbine. That this engine never materialised points the moral that it is in achievement that history is made not by invention in the purely conceptual sense. In these terms Sir Frank’s reputation is forever established.
With limited funds and relying on contractors for manufacture and test facilities Whittle, in an effectively solo effort, was able to demonstrate the feasibility of the jet engine by successful runs of the WU experimental unit in 1937, within a year of the start of Power Jets. This no doubt contributed to the change of attitude to the gas turbine with the looming prospect of war. Authority was given and funds provided for its development as a matter of urgency. Power Jets was rapidly expanded and the pace of work increased dramatically there, at the RAE and at supporting industries for materials, combustion etc. So the time had come for the realisation of Whittle’s primary objective of getting the jet engine into RAF service as soon as possible but overwork and stresses in the development of a series of higher performance engines took a heavy toll on his health. Quantity production for the RAF was quite beyond the capacity of Power Jets facilities and a contractor was brought in with a mandate to adapt mechanical design details to aid manufacture. Seeing his overall control of all aspects of the production of his engines being eroded, Whittle’s dealings with the contractor became increasingly strained. In 1941 jet engine data was handed over by the Government to the Americans. With RAF successes in the air war pressures on the aero-engine firms were easing and they too were brought into the jet field. All this sounded the death knell for Whittle’s ambition to make Power Jets the dominant company in the new technology. It is understandable that his memoirs in’Jet’ should reflect his increasing frustration and a growing bitterness, vented in part against some Ministry personnel who, he came to believe, had failed to support him in his disputes with contractors and had contributed to the ultimate nationalisation of Power Jets by Sir Stafford Cripps and its amalgamation with the RAE team to form Power Jets (Research and Development) Ltd, later to become The National Gas Turbine Establishment (NGTE). Such references have been grossly exaggerated by later writers, years after the events, into remarkably vindictive accusation against certain individuals.
One such was Major G P Bulman. Joining the Royal Flying Corps in 1914 and posted to the supervision and inspection of engines supplied by contractors, the unreliability of which was killing pilots, he devoted a career extending to 1944 to the supply of engines of proven type-tested reliability. It was as head of the Government department in charge of aero-engine development that he had sometimes stormy dealings with Whittle, as recorded in Bulman’s own memoirs, published posthumously as Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust Historical Series No. 31. While recognising the turbojet as the engine of the future, his experience had taught him that the development of any new engine to Service standards was an arduous process, often lengthy and sometimes abortive so he was resistant to anything that might divert effort from the reciprocating engines with which he believed the war had to be won. He records that he supported the effort being expended on the gas turbine and at one time helped to save Power Jets from the axe when Lord Beaverbrook proposed to suspend all work that was not contributing to his priority aircraft. Bulman also paid the following tribute: “The name of Frank Whittle is for all time associated with the jet, joining the short list of other great pioneers of Art and Science – Watt, Stephenson, Parsons, Diesel, Marconi, Fleming…men who had vision; all fanatics in their convictions, ahead of their time; all in some measure frustrated…”. One can hardly say better than that.
The six-year gap in any practical work on Whittle’s proposals is matched by a similar hiatus in the work at RAE. It has been claimed that had the Government given prompt support to Whittle’s ideas there could have been a British jet fighter available for the Battle of Britain. That may be so, but the scale of effort put in later in the run-up to war could never have been mounted in the climate of 1929. The Germans did put in the effort to get the first jet fighter into service, but the damage inflicted by the Me262 on allied daylight bombers was too late to seriously affect the issue. Over designed and under developed, its poor manoeuvrability enabled allied fighter pilots to cope. It was no war winner, so perhaps Bulman’s prognosis was validated.
Another target was Dr A A Griffith. During my own association with turbojet work I had some acquaintance with many of the participants including both Whittle and Griffith, the Air Ministry scientist to whom Whittle presented his proposals in 1929. Of Griffith Whittle wrote “…as early as 1926 he had been an advocate of the gas turbine as an aircraft power plant, but had hardly been more successful in influencing the Air Ministry than I…he pointed out, quite correctly, that certain of my assumptions were overoptimistic…” Much dejected as he was at the Ministry’s refusal to support his proposal he still acknowledged that “…at the end of 1929 it was before its time, but only by a few years.” Further references to Griffith in ‘Jet’ show no sign of animosity. Nevertheless he has been vilified by later critics and his intellectual integrity questioned in claims that he failed to give an honest and favourable report, which would very likely have resulted in some degree of Ministry backing. This surely overestimates his influence on the much superior decision makers who were strongly prejudiced against the prospects of the gas turbine, as Whittle had been warned prior to the interview, and who had also rejected Griffith’s own proposals. There seems to be no official record available of a Griffith report so derogatory statements as to the contents must surely be pure speculation, but they are still being echoed as in recent correspondence over the Giffard thesis in some previous PE issues.
A close parallel can be drawn between Whittle and Griffith. Early advocates of the gas turbine, both had their early proposals rejected by the Government department of the time. It was Whittle who made the fundamental leap to the jet and in opting initially for the centrifugal compressor he achieved his primary goal of seeing the jet engine in service with the RAF, but was thwarted by circumstances in his ambition to found a dominant new engine company. Griffith, with his definitive paper “An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design”, introduced the axial compressor as the better prospect for the long term, He saw this developed into a practical design system by his successors at RAE, led by Hayne Constant, and its application to the design of the first British axial engine to fly.
Long may the names of Sir Charles Parsons and Sir Frank Whittle share the honours in the annals of history; Parsons as leader in the turbo-generation of electricity and pioneer in other fields, Whittle as Father of the turbojet, heralding the new era of aircraft propulsion. At the same time let due credit be given to A A Griffith for the successful introduction of the axial-compressor gas turbine leading to the huge increase in engine capacity that we see today.
Stanley Gray, Farnborough, Hants
Next letter: Harness gravity