Did Roy Chadwick copy the Vulcan design from Jack Northrop?

[QUOTE=GrahamSimons;1785821]Some interesting comments here – many thanks!

Peter Clegg, who was in contact with Margaret Dove, Roy Chadwick’s daughter for many years, assures me that Chadwick visited the US and Canada a number of times during the war and visited Northrop ‘at least once’. During one trip there was a meeting with Dr. Norman F. Ramsey of the Manhattan Project in October 1943 for example. Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the ‘Thin Man’ gun and the ‘Fat Man’ implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed.

QUOTE]

Ah No – Ref your Fat Man claim -In Oct 1943 plutonium had not been produced in a quantity sufficient to determine its neutron cross section and likely PU240 concentration, which are vital measurements for determining how it would need to be assembled into a critical mass. These measurements were first preformed in April 1944, and showed plutonium to be unsuitable for a gun type device. The implosion concept surfaced as a response to this discovery in the late spring/summer of 1944.

Hence Chadwick could not have examined Fat Man sketches in 1943.

Inkworm, I refer you to my #12, the fact that the cockpit area kind of looks similar to a Vulcan is misleading from a fundamental design point of view (ie the important bit regarding the basic question here), at the end of the day the two overall concepts are very different from each other.

The probe bit I fear is not helping here, personally I find it puzzling to see on the Northrop drawing and leads me to wonder about the age of the drawing?

There’s so much going on it’s tricky to remember it all, however I’m looking at this from an artist’s point of view, not an engineers and the initial appearance is similar, as for the probe, it’s why I raised the issue of authenticity of the drawing.

Will be interesting to see where the speculation leads ultimately.

As for the British bias, that’s rubbish, the US is still one of our colonies and the Empire is standing firm so what do we have to worry about? :diablo:

… and if you dare suggest a Brit got an idea from an American, you will be treated “less-than-gently”.

Hi
Nah the brit ex german scientists probably acquired the ideas from the US ex german scientists.:D:rolleyes:
cheers
Jerry

Northrop’s and Avro’s designs inevitably drew from German research. This is common knowledge.

Hope this clarifies the matter.

Perhaps (and I say perhaps) Northrop had access to some of the PRE-WAR German work done by Lippisch (delta wings) and the Hortons (“flying-wing” gliders).

Since the first “reduced-scale” version of what became the B-35 was tested in 1940, there is no way that the Horton brothers’ military designs (1939+) could have influenced him!

On the other hand, there IS evidence that Northrop studied the work of English engineer J. W. Dunne (tail-less designs active during & just after WW1)… a man who also gave initial help to Geoffrey T. R. Hill for the Pterodactyl series.

Lippisch himself worked with Convair, leading to the XF-92, F2Y, F-102, F-106, & B-58 designs.

The story will be outlined in full, courtesy of a book which will be on the shelves fairly soon. But no, Chadwick wasn’t absent through the development of other aircraft. And yes, it does fly in the face of (some) writings on this subject. But as I’ve said many times before, many aviation books simply regurgitate material from previous books, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. TSR2 was/is a classic example.

It was considered, just abbreviated by the joys of using the Mrs’ iPad. Sorry!

I tried that for the first time yesterday with the Gannet thread… didn’t go very well:o

Agreed this is an interesting thread.
It would be good to hear more about Chox’s information that Chadwick wasn’t around at the begining of the 698 design period due to illness, it seems to fly in the face of populor writings on the subject, but also suggests that he might have been absent during Lincoln, Shackleton, & Tudor development periods.

I thought we might have more considered input from you, …

It was considered, just abbreviated by the joys of using the Mrs’ iPad. Sorry!

I was questioning the generalised nationalistic inference that Brits seem to take the oppurtunity to knock American ideas by a large body of members here (which isn’t the cas as far as I can see),…

Sorry (not sitting in the UK, and also noting the reactions from some non-UK and US members I can’t agree. See a late comment from John Boyle in the Red Tails’ thread.) It’s monotonous, the same old nationalistic canards appearing, and several points in this thread fit the complaint, some flippant and tedious, others apparently more factually based but proven incorrect by previous posts.

However that’s not germane to the reasonable development of the thread which if the OP’s posts are read carefully (a rare and treasured thing) raise some interesting items to consider. Then someone tipped a lot of red herrings all over it…

Regards,

From my experience this forum has a massive British bias, as WIX has an equivalent US bias, in both cases despite input from all over the world.

I thought we might have more considered input from you, I was questioning the generalised nationalistic inference that Brits seem to take the oppurtunity to knock American ideas by a large body of members here (which isn’t the cas as far as I can see), not the bias of the forum which is quite understandably heavily British – it being a British website and all.

You see, GrahamSimons… there is a large body of posters here that believe the Americans “borrowed” or stole everything from someone else… and anyone who suggests that the Americans had original ideas is treated with skepticism… and if you dare suggest a Brit got an idea from an American, you will be treated “less-than-gently”.

My personnal feeling is that we aren’t all that shallow or stupid and that the same level of challange and questioning would have occured if the two companies were based in the same country or completey different ones than the UK or US.

Still the same comments about Chadwick here. The Vulcan design did not come from Chadwick. He wasn’t even at Avro’s when it was drawn-up (he was sick at the time).

Northrop’s and Avro’s designs inevitably drew from German research. This is common knowledge. Chadwick’s visit to the US had no connection with the Vulcan whatsoever. As I keep saying, he didn’t propose the initial design. He was anticipating something far more conventional along similar lines to the Sperrin.

The initial design of the Vulcan wasn’t a direct imitation of German proposals however. The design was achieved through a careful process which inevitably led to a delta layout. Lindley says that having seen German papers (in 1945), this simply confirmed that the delta concept made sense.

Hope this clarifies the matter.

Sorry what large body of posters, how come you make the issue a nationalistic one?

From my experience this forum has a massive British bias, as WIX has an equivalent US bias, in both cases despite input from all over the world.

Graham, a slightest glance at Northrops’ history reveals he was in the wings business well before the German data was made available, and possibly before they were doing it.
I think we can be a bit too quick to sight all slightly different aerodynamic designs of 1930s-’50 as being of German origin or influence. Swept-wings, delta-wings, and flying-wings were being thought of by many different designers in different countries, I don’t doubt that there where various outside influences on some designs and details etc though.
Indeed we could equally ask the question, did the Hortons’ of Germany copy Northrop?

Where I am having difficulties with some of the comments here containing the inference that Northrop used ideas from ‘captured German scientists’. In terms of the original post I made I’m talking about the Turbodyne B-35 – itself an offshoot of the B-35 that itself was ‘pre-developed’ from the N9M series of sub-scale models. A Mockup Board from Wright Field arrived at Hawthorn on 5 July 1942 to Inspect a full size wood mock-up of the center section and a portion of the left wing of the B-35, approval was given and manufacture of the XB-35 began at Hawthorne early in 1943.

Ah, our Germans are better than their Germans – they can travel back in time! I agree it’s a bit lazy to accuse Northrop of ripping off German ‘Luft ’46’ designs because a simple glance at the dates shows that Northrop had fully-developed flying wing designs years before captured German was available.

As far as your point about ‘inspiration’ is concerned, I think if this were the case it would be quite indistinct. However, Chadwick generally seemed happy to stick to mature technology unless there was a good reason not to – perhaps a look at some of the ‘Buck Rogers’ material at Northrop persuaded him that a quantum leap was called for. Looking at Chadwick’s evolutionary approach to past designs, I’m a little surprised that the Vulcan didn’t appear looking a lot more like a Short Sperrin!

Nevertheless, I still struggle with the notion that a delta could be in any way inspired by a tailless swept wing other than in a very loose way.

Some interesting comments here – many thanks!

I must keep saying, I never suggested Chadwick ‘copied’ or ‘stole’ from Northrop – I said was he ‘inspired by’. Indeed, if you go back into the Northrop story there is very good evidence that Northrop ‘copied’ his first wing idea – to the point of plagiarism – from Anthony ‘Tony’ Stadlman with whom he worked at Lougheed.

As for Northrop using others research information – quite possible. Pre-war there was Alexander Lippisch and the Horten brothers in Germany, also Soviet designers such as Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky and of course Frenchman Charles Fauvel. In this period as well you also have to bring in the Westland-Hill Pterodactyl series.

What I have been trying to do, is to construct a time-line of possible events.

Where I am having difficulties with some of the comments here containing the inference that Northrop used ideas from ‘captured German scientists’. In terms of the original post I made I’m talking about the Turbodyne B-35 – itself an offshoot of the B-35 that itself was ‘pre-developed’ from the N9M series of sub-scale models. A Mockup Board from Wright Field arrived at Hawthorn on 5 July 1942 to Inspect a full size wood mock-up of the center section and a portion of the left wing of the B-35, approval was given and manufacture of the XB-35 began at Hawthorne early in 1943.

The Turbodyne engine seems to have been originally conceived by Vladimer Pavlecka chief of research at Northrop in 1940. After assorted models and test examples the first engine ran in a Northrop test cell March 1945. Around the same time plans were made to eventually flight-test this engine in the first XB-35 42-13603.

All of that fits into a time frame 1939-1945 which to me precludes any influence from the inferred suggestion of Northrop Inc using material from ‘captured German scientists’.

Peter Clegg, who was in contact with Margaret Dove, Roy Chadwick’s daughter for many years, assures me that Chadwick visited the US and Canada a number of times during the war and visited Northrop ‘at least once’. During one trip there was a meeting with Dr. Norman F. Ramsey of the Manhattan Project in October 1943 for example. Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the ‘Thin Man’ gun and the ‘Fat Man’ implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed.

All of this puts Chadwick in the right place at the right timeframe and at this point it appears that both he and Northrop were free from any influence of German wartime scientific research – for captive materiel did not start to cross either the Channel or the Atlantic until April-July 1945.

Accounts I have seen suggest that Chadwick started preliminary design work in the Avro 698 in the winter of 1946/7. That gives him a good twelve months to make use of captured German research data.

The two drawings I put up at the start of this thread proport to be design studies from Northrop Inc for an atomic bomb carrier powered by a pair of Turbodyne (T-37) turbo-props. Other drawings and specifications state proposals for four Allison turbo-prop powered versions and others with a combination of J-40 and T-47 jet engines along with the T-37s.

As you have seen – the drawings show a stub-forward fuselage and a typical Northrop rear tailcone. The difficulty is what is the date of them? I don’t know.

Given the known timeframe of XB/YB-35 build and flight and the horrendous problems they had with the P&W piston engines and the contra-props, my instinct says that these were drawn up post 1946, but they may have been in Northrop’s design study folder much earlier. I guess we will never know!

Tony, Jack Northrop wasn’t, that is what I’m trying to make very clear in my last para of my previous post.

If anything I would have said both were influenced by the earlier work by Horten

see

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/evolution%20of%20technology/horten.htm

You see, GrahamSimons… there is a large body of posters here that believe the Americans “borrowed” or stole everything from someone else… and anyone who suggests that the Americans had original ideas is treated with skepticism… and if you dare suggest a Brit got an idea from an American, you will be treated “less-than-gently”.

That’s a little unfair, not least as in my 21.55 post yesterday I wrote ‘Northrop developed his flying wing ideas independently of German experimental practices.’ It’s not surprising people think Northrop simply plundered German wartime design thinking – there was a lot of it going around, on both sides of the Atlantic. Northrop deserves full credit for the layout, and for the fact that his designs were ahead of their time – meaning fully safe and effective control was not possible in the 1940s and 1950s. And both British and German (and Russian) designers created practical, effective designs from this rash of paper projects, which is more than the Germans did. Though perhaps now I am being unfair…

Like the claim that the only way the Americans thought of the “all-flying-tail” modification for the X-1 in 1947 was because they had the blueprints for the Miles M.52… despite Curtis and NACA having tested an “all-flying-tail” on a modified P-40 (XP-42) in 1943… in both a wind tunnel and in actual flight.

That’s a touch unfair too – the Miles design linked the all-flying tail specifically to transonic flight, and the X-1 would not have exceeded Mach 1 without it. We don’t know where the idea to fit it to the X-1 (after it had already flown and been found to be uncontrollable in the transonic region) came from but it rankles with some that Bell had access to Miles design data while the US government stepped in and stopped Bell reciprocating. But this is now seriously off topic…

I suspect the ‘probe’ on the nose of the Northrop design is a pitot tube – a number of early jets mounted it on the nose.

Inkworm, I refer you to my #12, the fact that the cockpit area kind of looks similar to a Vulcan is misleading from a fundamental design point of view (ie the important bit regarding the basic question here), at the end of the day the two overall concepts are very different from each other.
Even the cockpit areas themselves are different from a technical point of view, Northrops’ is a more open WWII type employing a more scattered crew displacement, ‘blown’ clear fighter style canopy, and glazing in the leading edges of the wing.
The Vulcan employed tight crew displacement due to being in a small pressurized compartment with only small windows (within canopy and bombaimers positions).

The probe bit I fear is not helping here, personally I find it puzzling to see on the Northrop drawing and leads me to wonder about the age of the drawing?
I can’t think of other designs of the era where refuelling probes (if that is what it is?) where thought of, let alone designed in like that, and Northrop designs in general did not feature them, indeed one thing going for the wing was their long-range capabilities.
Also don’t forget that the 698 or early Vulcan designs didn’t feature in flight refuelling.

Sorry what large body of posters, how come you make the issue a nationalistic one?
My responce would be exactly the same if Avro were based in Manchester and Nortrop in Milton Keynes, indeed the basic question could be asked no matter where the companies were from.

It has to be said though that when it comes to flying-wings Jack Northrop was there very early on and it was a very deep seated vision of his to see tailess wings in military and airline service, I doubt he needed much outside influence for the fundementals of his work. He also employed his own
unique wing structure design in many of his types – he was of that era when visionary designer, stressmen, and engineer were sometimes the same person.
He got to see the B-2 design when it was till very much secret shortly before he passed away, what a heart warming moment that must have been for him.

Am I missing something or is the thread getting a little lost? As I understand the initial post it was not the design of the flying surface/wing/delta or what ever term you want, it was more the surprising similarities between the cockpit and nose area of the Northrop drawing and the production Vulcans.

Hi
you are probably spot on there…:D
cheers
Jerry

You see, GrahamSimons… there is a large body of posters here that believe the Americans “borrowed” or stole everything from someone else… and anyone who suggests that the Americans had original ideas is treated with skepticism… and if you dare suggest a Brit got an idea from an American, you will be treated “less-than-gently”.

Like the claim that the only way the Americans thought of the “all-flying-tail” modification for the X-1 in 1947 was because they had the blueprints for the Miles M.52… despite Curtis and NACA having tested an “all-flying-tail” on a modified P-40 (XP-42) in 1943… in both a wind tunnel and in actual flight.