PDA

View Full Version : Old jet engine...



The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 02:22 AM
http://cockpitfest.21.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=628

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8020/7659742726_530e11f5c1.jpg


One Rolls Royce Derwent jet engine, one of the very first operational jet engines, the Allies had these in WWII and we have two of them! But you can buy one..I will even put it on a pallet for you!

It is being offered as not likely to be suitable for running but never underestimate the powers of determined home shoppers!

aostling
07-29-2012, 03:11 AM
John,

What did it come off of, and how did it get to Ashburton?

The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 03:33 AM
Allan, it is one of two that came with a Gloster Meteor we got from our cousins on the big red island to the west of here.

oldtiffie
07-29-2012, 03:48 AM
It looks very like the "Ghost" engine in D-H "Sea Venom" and "Vampire" single jet engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Venom

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=venom&cp=9&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=venom+aircraft&pf=p&rlz=1W1IRFC_enAU360&sclient=psy-ab&oq=venom+air&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=2941a4a94e6ad614&biw=1920&bih=851

The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 04:04 AM
Yes, it does look like a Ghost engine but this is a Derwent, smaller, less powerful and older design. This one was in a Gloster Meteor.

oldtiffie
07-29-2012, 04:26 AM
Yes, it does look like a Ghost engine but this is a Derwent, smaller, less powerful and older design. This one was in a Gloster Meteor.

The Glouster Meteor was used by RAAF 77 Squadron in Korea but was out-classed by the Russian MIG's and was replaced by the Sabres which were much more up to dealing with some very good Russian/Chinese pilots in Russian MIG's.

The GM's were retired and replaced by the Australian made/assembled (under licence) USA Sabres.

The last I saw of the GM was that they were used as a remote-guided/flown target (tracking and firing) for the (piloted) Sabres at the Woomera missile testing range. The Sabres used the "Sidewinder" (USA) missile which were fired at the GM's but "set low" to miss the GM's - didn't always work as planned as every so often a SW would go straight up the exhaust of the GM engine. Some of the remote pilots were prety good but most time the piloted Sabres were better.

There were often a few of those engines just lying around on the range in the desert - some were a bit mangled from the crash to earth but others may have been OK for display purposes etc..

It was quite a spectacular sight - and so was a lot of other stuff tested/fired at the Woomera Ranges.

My family was at Woomera for about 14 years and I and my brother were Apprentices at the (then) Long Range Weapons Research Establishment (in Adelaide, South Australia) and had several transfers to Woomera as part of our Apprenticeship training.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=gloster+meteor&hl=en&rlz=1R2IRFC_enAU360&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=juYUUNzlEqSjiAep5YGICg&ved=0CFoQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=851

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&rlz=1R2IRFC_enAU360&sclient=psy-ab&q=gloster+meteor&rlz=1R2IRFC_enAU360&oq=gloucester+me&gs_l=hp.1.2.0l2j0i10j0.0.0.1.5349.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0. .0.0...0.0...1c.nL4LQF812jk&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1920&bih=851&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&cad=b

The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 04:40 AM
I dont think this one has ever felt a Sidewinder up it's tail pipe!

The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 04:49 AM
This the Meteor in our museum..

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GLudYHMB4cU/T2_epYdNhoI/AAAAAAAADSI/v4Q1Wo5ZsFg/s1600/Ashburton-Museum-Meteor-019.jpg

John Stevenson
07-29-2012, 07:02 AM
Not wanting to take this thread OT and only personal views but the engineer in me looks at these engines and it does nothing for me.
After decades of seeing all sorts of fantastic piston engines when the jet came in to me it looks like a collection of bean tins when compared to a big radial or Merlin.

I accept that this was the way forward as regards power and maintenance but doesn't mean I have to like them - sorry, others have their own opinions which is what this is.

gwilson
07-29-2012, 08:52 AM
I really prefer propeller planes aesthetically,too,but having ridden in Grumman Gray Goose seaplanes as a teenager in Alaska,I do prefer the smoothness of jets. Those old wwII Gray Gooses would shake your teeth out!! They flew low and slow,and drop 20 feet when they hit an air pocket,hitting the bottom with a huge CLANG!!. Guess it was the tool box in the back or something.

I got sick as a dog going from Ketchikan to Sitka when I was in the 4th. grade. Didn't know better than to try to read a Popular Mechanic's magazine on the way there. Weather so rough we had to turn back on the first try. We flew out of Alaska on a Constellation in 1957,which was better. Guess it flew higher.

These early,bulky British jet engines made for very fat aircraft,too.

loose nut
07-29-2012, 10:07 AM
the jet came in to me it looks like a collection of bean tins
.


You have no soul John. Jet engines rock:D

cameron
07-29-2012, 10:44 AM
I'm not a fan of jet engines, either, especially the tubby ones. But I've always liked the looks of the Meteor. Now that it's an antique, the generous girth of the engine pods lends it a certain quaint charm that wasn't apparent to me back then.

Grind Hard
07-29-2012, 11:25 AM
Why not keep the engine there on static display in front of the aircraft?

flylo
07-29-2012, 02:49 PM
The Air Zoo in Kalamazoo had an auction about 4 years ago. Sold about 25 jet engines for aprox $400 ea. Theses were about 8' cubed. Thought about one for a lawn ornementm but really want a radial coffee table.

loose nut
07-29-2012, 03:30 PM
the generous girth of the engine pods lends it a certain quaint charm

That must mean I have a "certain quaint charm" also.

gnm109
07-29-2012, 04:52 PM
Not wanting to take this thread OT and only personal views but the engineer in me looks at these engines and it does nothing for me.
After decades of seeing all sorts of fantastic piston engines when the jet came in to me it looks like a collection of bean tins when compared to a big radial or Merlin.

I accept that this was the way forward as regards power and maintenance but doesn't mean I have to like them - sorry, others have their own opinions which is what this is.

I too prefer to look at piston engines. My favorite was the Manx Norton with it's oil glistening on the cylinder fins in the morning sun.

The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 05:14 PM
Why not keep the engine there on static display in front of the aircraft?

We have enough for that, museums like ours tend to collect more engines than aircraft and we do have an engine on display with the Meteor.

The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 05:21 PM
Sir John, you do have a point and I wish we had more piston engines on display.

The biggest piston engine we have is a Bristol Hercules, it is displayed along with a page from Flight magazine telling how the British were the only ones to make a success of sleeve valve aero engines and that "others" tried and failed.

We have a Rolls Royce Avon jet engine that I would like to open up and expose the turbine so I might be along soon asking how to get seized studs out of magnesium(?) alloy.

The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 05:23 PM
I too prefer to look at piston engines. My favorite was the Manx Norton with it's oil glistening on the cylinder fins in the morning sun.

My British motorcycle is a Douglas and is quite unlike other British bikes and I do miss the oil on the garage floor glistening in the morning sun.

Grind Hard
07-29-2012, 05:30 PM
We have enough for that, museums like ours tend to collect more engines than aircraft and we do have an engine on display with the Meteor.

I'd love to display something like this, but I'm afraid to ask the cost of freight.

I'm in Buffalo NY, 14207... Dare I ask--? :D

oldtiffie
07-29-2012, 09:12 PM
I'm not a fan of jet engines, either, especially the tubby ones. But I've always liked the looks of the Meteor. Now that it's an antique, the generous girth of the engine pods lends it a certain quaint charm that wasn't apparent to me back then.

If you lik4d the look of the Meteor you might like the looks of the Canberra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Canberra

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=13&gs_id=1e&xhr=t&q=canberra+bomber&pf=p&rlz=1W1IRFC_enAU360&sclient=psy-ab&oq=canberra+bomb&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=2941a4a94e6ad614&biw=778&bih=416

The Artful Bodger
07-29-2012, 09:24 PM
We have the cockpit and nose of a Canberra B2 on display, it is very popular because we let people climb inside and jack the seat up and down.
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i95/skyhawkdon/AshburtonAviationMuseum001.jpg

Photo from http://rnzaf.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=Airshows&action=display&thread=13128&page=1

...it's worth going to that link to see more of our little museum.

Asquith
07-30-2012, 10:32 AM
We have a Rolls Royce Avon jet engine that I would like to open up and expose the turbine so I might be along soon asking how to get seized studs out of magnesium(?) alloy.

Bodger,

You might wish to join the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust. There are five branches, at least two of which (Bristol and Derby) have their own restoration workshops. I'm sure they'd be happy to give advice, as well as being interested in what you're doing.

Members get a regular newsletter, always containing recollections from insiders which provide a very good insight into the foibles and development of engines and aircraft. You also get a good reduction on the already reasonable prices of the excellent range of RRHT books.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/heritage/heritage_trust/branches/

gwilson
07-30-2012, 01:28 PM
When I was a teenager,my younger brother climbed into a jet on display,grabbed the funnel with a rubber hose in it and put it up to his mouth. He thought it has a microphone. Dropped it FAST when I told him it was the relief tube!!:)
I think the jet was an old Cougar jet.

kbertoson
07-30-2012, 01:43 PM
Good one gwilson. The Navy H-46 Helicopter also had relief tubes. Never did see one used. Check your messages i sent a question about Ketchikan.

willmac
07-30-2012, 04:18 PM
The Canberra was an highly successful aircraft with roles ranging from nuclear capable bomber to research and spy plane. It was sold to more than a dozen different countries, including very interestingly the USA, who had nothing like it at the time. It filled a gap for high altitude up to maybe 65,000 feet photo-reconnaissance until more specialized aircraft such as U2 took over. The US version was designated B57 and manufactured under license by Martin. The aircraft entered service with the RAF in 1951 and remained in service with some country's air forces until 2008. That is an incredibly long run. It is possible that NASA's Canberras are still flying - the records are unclear. Most Canberras were made at a factory a few miles from me just outside Preston, the location for production of the equally amazing Lightning.

tdmidget
07-30-2012, 04:57 PM
The altitudes of 65 and 70,000 feet are not for combat aircraft. The service ceiling for the B57B was 45,100 feet and this likely more than the English Electric versions. The aircraft that were capable of these altitudes were the "long wing" versions, the B57F which were rebuilt from existing airframes and operated as WB57s and RB57s. 19 were built and they entered service in 1964, long after the U2. NASA does indeed still operate 2 and at Davis Monthan there is at least 1 B57F and 1 B57B in long term storage

loose nut
07-30-2012, 05:36 PM
A capable aircraft when you consider it was designed as a jet powered replacement for the Mosquito.

The Artful Bodger
07-30-2012, 05:55 PM
Bodger,

You might wish to join the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust.

Thanks Asquith, right now I am getting plenty of advice from the guys at Hunter Flying but I will keep the RRHT in mind.

willmac
07-30-2012, 06:26 PM
loose nut -
Yes an even closer replacement than it first appears - it still had some wood used in its construction.

As far as ceilings go, the altitudes used in long range Soviet photo-reconnaissance are a bit unclear for obvious reasons, but 65,889 ft was public in 1955, and 70,000+ reached with rocket motors in 1957. Of course these were for record attempts and research.

A wide range of engines was used and it was used as a testbed for engine development.

The Artful Bodger
07-30-2012, 06:39 PM
The Canberra B2 (cockpit) we have flew with RAE Farnborough from 1953 till 2002, we kept it in the RAE colour scheme!

It is the only jet aircraft I have seen with an external rear vision mirror!

tdmidget
07-31-2012, 01:18 AM
It is kind of hard to make sense of anything that gov'ts admit to. As a kid on a SAC base it was routine that our elders discussed B52D's routinely flying at 55-60,000 feet. Yet the published service ceiling was 49,400 feet. Who the hell are we fooling? If you really want the skinny on the performance of a B57 or B52, the Russians or Chinese are probably the best source.