3 ms·

Again, doesn't contradict anything I said. An iPhone is cheaper to build today than a typical computer of the 1960s. Does that mean it would have been cheap or

Again, doesn't contradict anything I said. An iPhone is cheaper to build today than a typical computer of the 1960s. Does that mean it would have been cheap or easy to build a current-model iPhone in the 1960s? Because that's the argument you're making here, essentially. Once you have the necessary tech under your belt, yes, you get a bunch of benefits from switching. But until you have that tech, you're probably not going to say "oh well, won't build any planes for the next few decades, because the engines we'd use today are way more complex and less useful than the ones we'll have eventually". Jet engines are simpler than reciprocating engines. I'll happily write that on the blackboard 1000 times, if you'll write "But until you have the fundamental technology for it, you can't build any jet engines" 1000 times. Also, read your own link: Completed engines earned a reputation for unreliability; the time between major overhauls (not technically a TBO) was about 50 hours. Even those early engines, despite being cheaper, and quicker to assemble, still weren't up to the point of being usefully reliable. Jet engines are hard.

perilunar 8y ago
> Again, doesn't contradict anything I said. Yes it does. You said: “Reciprocating engines were far more complex mechanically, but lasted as long as they did before being supplanted by jet (gas turbine) engines precisely because of how much easier it was to build and maintain them.” I pointed out that they were not easier to build. Jet engines were. > An iPhone is cheaper to build today than a typical computer of the 1960s. That’s just being disingenuous. The first production jet engines were cheaper to build than piston engines of the same era. > you're probably not going to say "oh well, won't build any planes for the next few decades, because the engines we'd use today are way more complex and less useful than the ones we'll have eventually" It wasn’t a few decades. The first production jet engines obsoleted piston engines in fighter aircraft almost immediately. And in airliners in the 50s, by which time they were already more reliable. > Jet engines are hard. Maybe, but we've been building them successfully for 70 years. To get back to the grandparent point, What ‘fundamental technology’ is China missing that makes them unable to build advanced jet engines? Are they really so far behind metallurgy that they can’t?
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  I pointed out that they were not easier to build. Jet engines were. What I am saying is there was a point in time, let's call it T, when people first acquired both the knowledge and practical techniques to build jet engines. What I have said is that, prior to time T, building jet engines was not easier than building reciprocating engines. In fact, prior to time T, building jet engines was generally impossible, because people did not yet possess the knowledge and practical techniques to build jet engines. Therefore, prior to time T, building reciprocating engines was easier. They could be built using light adaptation of well-understood existing technology, and "can build today" is more practical and easier than "might be able to build in a couple decades", if what you want is airplanes right now. Even though later advances would produce jet engines, and those engines would be mechanically simpler, easier, every adjective you'd like to throw at them, those advances had not yet happened. You seem to be arguing that: * After time T, jet engines are easier, therefore * Prior to time T, jet engines also were easier, therefore * There was no time at which jet engines were harder And you seem to be doing this for no other reason than to try to pedantically show someone up on HN. So I'm going to stop engaging with you now.

perilunar 8y ago

> Again, doesn't contradict anything I said. Yes it does. You said: “Reciprocating engines were far more complex mechanically, but lasted as long as they did before being supplanted by jet (gas turbine) engines precisely because of how much easier it was to build and maintain them.” I pointed out that they were not easier to build. Jet engines were. > An iPhone is cheaper to build today than a typical computer of the 1960s. That’s just being disingenuous. The first production jet engines were cheaper to build than piston engines of the same era. > you're probably not going to say "oh well, won't build any planes for the next few decades, because the engines we'd use today are way more complex and less useful than the ones we'll have eventually" It wasn’t a few decades. The first production jet engines obsoleted piston engines in fighter aircraft almost immediately. And in airliners in the 50s, by which time they were already more reliable. > Jet engines are hard. Maybe, but we've been building them successfully for 70 years. To get back to the grandparent point, What ‘fundamental technology’ is China missing that makes them unable to build advanced jet engines? Are they really so far behind metallurgy that they can’t?

ubernostrum 8y ago
I pointed out that they were not easier to build. Jet engines were. What I am saying is there was a point in time, let's call it T, when people first acquired both the knowledge and practical techniques to build jet engines. What I have said is that, prior to time T, building jet engines was not easier than building reciprocating engines. In fact, prior to time T, building jet engines was generally impossible, because people did not yet possess the knowledge and practical techniques to build jet engines. Therefore, prior to time T, building reciprocating engines was easier. They could be built using light adaptation of well-understood existing technology, and "can build today" is more practical and easier than "might be able to build in a couple decades", if what you want is airplanes right now. Even though later advances would produce jet engines, and those engines would be mechanically simpler, easier, every adjective you'd like to throw at them, those advances had not yet happened. You seem to be arguing that: * After time T, jet engines are easier, therefore * Prior to time T, jet engines also were easier, therefore * There was no time at which jet engines were harder And you seem to be doing this for no other reason than to try to pedantically show someone up on HN. So I'm going to stop engaging with you now.