3 ms·
> But the jets? Sigh. You can't make a jet engine in a machine shop. Is this really because of the digitization of things, or because modern jet engines are ju
by nexuist 7y ago
> But the jets? Sigh. You can't make a jet engine in a machine shop.
Is this really because of the digitization of things, or because modern jet engines are just that complex on all accounts?
I mean, the act of making the turbine blades only uses some of the most advanced metallurgy techniques known to man. It's not just putting things together the same way you can install a transmission to a chassis or a hard drive to a computer.
As a counterpoint, though - I bet you could make a jet engine in a machine shop. It would be terribly inefficient, loud, unreliable, but there is really nothing stopping you from making something that can produce the thrust necessary for flight (up to an extent). After all, the people in the '40s were blessed with even less resources and information than we have now, and they got it to work.
- WalterBright 7y ago> because modern jet engines are just that complex on all accounts? It's indeed not about computers. Jet engines in the 1950s were designed without computers. I do know of a couple from-scratch replicas of Me-262s that were built. The only differences were: 1. no machine guns 2. modern instruments 3. modern helicopter turbine engines were used Nobody wanted to fly with the jet engines of the war years. I recall those engines had a life expectancy of 20 hours. (Or maybe it was 2 hours, not sure.) It was mainly the metallurgy that did them in. I think they strengthened the nose gear, too, as it had an ugly tendency to collapse on landing.