With how simple jet engines are, why weren't they weaponised

File: passenger jet engine side.jpg (321KB, 1521x1021px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1521x1021px

>simple

File: 0jleGhu.jpg (653KB, 2200x1467px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 2200x1467px

>>31086888

>simple

>>31086888
Because the materials of the early 20th century were not strong and heat-resistant enough to build a gas turbine with a high TWR.

The idea is "simple"

>>31086888
Initially, low thrust, extremely poor fuel consumption, poor operating envelope, manufacturing difficulties, short lifespan...
They are simple. In idea.
One spinning part with fan blades that compresses air, which fuel is sprayed into and ignited which turns a fan connected to the first that makes it spin and go. Simple.
The problem is in the tolerances of the blades, their angles, abalncing a thing that spins at 10k rpm, balancing a thing weighing many tons that spins 10k rpm and has a tolerance of 0.0001". And then the metallurgy of the exhaust and intake since air heats when compressed and burning exhaust is hot, so specialty alloys that can take it had to be made and improved.

Also ramjets don't run if they aren't moving unlike pulsejets (which incidentally saw usage and weaponization way before regular jet engines) and so you need to accelerate a ramjet vehicle to speed before the engines work. Although I think some place made a ramjet helicopter where the jets are on the rotor tips.

File: boom.gif (2KB, 358x141px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 358x141px

>>31086888
With how simple nukes are, why weren't they weaponised sooner?

>>31086964
>something something hindsight something 20:20

>>31086941
>>31086931

Those are engines for airliners, they are vastly more complex than the engines for a fighter jet or missile.

Have you ever seen a jet engine? There is one on display in my engineering building.


I assure you, it's anything but simple.

File: MT30-rolls-royce-e_3604911b.jpg (380KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 620x388px

>>31086888
simple.

File: j-10 fighter engine.jpg (166KB, 1258x581px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1258x581px

>>31087087
>engines for airliners, they are vastly more complex than the engines for a fighter jet or missile

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

*cough*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

File: 1434780296203.jpg (28KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 540x540px

>>31086888
>Turboshaft
I truly am still a child at heart
>Simple
Nah mate you're pretty damn simple yourself

>>31087087
wow the armchair plebgineers are out tonight

is this op? :^)

kek

maybe you are thinking of a pulse jet that you can push your go kart around with.

>>31087171
how do they counter the torque of that fan spinning at 10k RPMs? That's a shitload of force.

>>31087211

Spin one at the same speed going the opposite way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XRhCwk7XzU
This entire channel is a good look at jet engine complexity.

>>31087236
well shit, I'll show myself out.

>>31087138

>That pic, an early Turbojet

The earliest mass produced Turbojets were simpler and cheaper to build than their pistoned peers. They were essentially stamped metal construction. The Jumo 004 and BMW 003 were nearly 1/3rd the cost and man hours of the BMW 801.

OP I'm not sure why though you think they should have become more widely available any earlier. Remember that in the 30s this was completely new tech and had to be developed from the ground up, while piston engines had decades of maturity ,

>>31086931
>>31086941
>>31087115
>>31087138
>>31087180

>I know nothing about early Jets, the thread

>>31087355
>he thinks that ramjets and pulsejets are viable for aircraft propulsion

Well, you might actually be right.

I'm pretty sure you'd need RATO to get them going though.

>>31087019

Because weapons grade fissionable material needs to be manufactured, and that required a manhattan project to kick start.

>>31086888
The concept is simple, but manufacturing them is very hard. High temperatures require specific materials and manufacturing processes. Those things spin extremely fast, so you need very good bearings, and a perfect balance.

Also, with how simple it is to be heterosexual, why are you gay, OP?

>>31086888

Jet engines are the most complex machines ever made.

>>31087355
>i'm trying desperately to make myself not look like a complete tool, the post

>>31086888
The devil is in the details.

>>31087608
Nope. They're up there though.

>>31087211
The moment arm of the blades is relatively small compared to a prop so it's not as dominant of a factor. Counter-rotating spools are a relatively new development for commercial engines.

Military has had the tech for a while, the RR Pegasus and the PW F135 both rely on counter-rotation as the STOVL aircraft they power would tend to flip over if the throttle was opened if they rotated the same direction.

One of the challenges having of counter-rotating spools is the bearings. Depending on engine power settings the bearings between the spools can rotate in one direction or the other. High relative differences are fine, it's when the spool speeds are close that the bearings can slow down and skid. Needless to say skid is very bad news for bearings, much of the logic in engine control systems is scheduling the various engine geometry to keep the spools at non-skid inducing differential velocities.

>>31086888
Metallurgy and material science always lags behind engineering.

File: 8295530994_c34ab36e06_b.jpg (350KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1024x680px

>>31087355
>I think early jets were simpler, the post

File: 640x414_15015_Private_SST_concept_2d_plane_jet_aircraft_futuristic_picture_image_digital_art.jpg (13KB, 640x414px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x414px

>>31086954
This.
Ramjets are conceptually and mechanically simple

Turbojets are conceptually simple and mechanically not as bad as they look, but operate on tight tolerances

Turbofans: see above +bypass

Turboprops: above + transmission

It's not difficult to find videos of homebuilt rams and even turbos, but you'll notice they don't run for very long. It's very difficult to build something light and heat resistant enough for hours of continuous use

I believe the concept of a jet engine was known in the 20s but it was seen unviable by many as any built prototypes failed to produce thrust due to horrible designs, the compressors failed to compress due to bad blade design and low RPM and whatnot

Even the early operational jet engines (looking at you Jumo 004) had major issues, while suitable for flight they had ridiculously low lifespans, as in ~20 hours.

File: Rolls_Royce_Goblin_II_numbered_cutaway.jpg (408KB, 1400x1100px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1400x1100px

Older jets are pretty simple but performance is garbage. Modern versions are around 10x as powerful.

WW2 made needed materials difficult to get.

>>31086888
Are you talking about gyrojet pistols?

Heat OP. Massive amounts of heat. Jet engines get very hot. There's a lot of engineering that comes into play to overcome that. Not to mention the timing/thrust controls and all the other electronics and meters that help keep a jet engine running.

Early pulse jets were used on the v1 flying bombs, do they count? If so that's pretty early in jet development

>>31087309
Nothing like a great Canadian accent to explain the complexities of a jet! We watched several of his videos in A&P school. They're really helpful if you want to build a decent knowledge of the operating principles.

>>31086941
That's a pod racer anon

Jet engines are NOT complicated in their basic form.

A turbo jet can be made from a couple pieces of tubing, a turbo charger from a car and some hose.

Now to make an engine that will actually be useful in, say a plane, that is another matter. Though even then you can keep the engine rather simple.
Of course if you want good burn, power, fuel economy, weight etc. you're looking at a more complicated design, but in their basic form jet engines are way more simple than ANY 4-stroke combustion engines.

In their most basic functional form
>a pulse jet doesn't need ANY moving parts.
>a turbojet needs ONE moving part.

Have an example, a turbo jet made out of a toilet paper holder and a car turbo, with a drill and angle grinder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EorMrpM6q9Q

File: 449238f77fb2a9919db4c6ece0880b26.jpg (62KB, 610x454px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 610x454px

>>31090395
>turbo jet made out of a toilet paper holder and a car turbo

>>31087310
Don't bother, it was a genuinely good question, however simple the answer seems to be. Remember, an answer might seem simple, but it's not like it's a simple thing to actually do.

>tl;dr thanks for asking non-shit questions

>>31089701
>what is pulse jet

>>31089860
It gets even more interesting when the air inlet temp is 400 C

>>31087355
>the real I have no idea the post
The theory of operation is simple, the getting it to work part requires a lot of very detailed and precision engineering and manufacturing. The tolerances are stupid tight.

P.s. I work on them for a living.

>>31086888
>why weren't they weaponised sooner

Jet engines began as propulsion for military aircraft. They were not used for other applications until later. Piston prop aircraft began as research, hobby and sport and were weaponised later.

What does /k/ think of Scramjet?

>>31086888
They were used in military aircraft basically immediately.

If you mean why weren't they invented or otherwise used sooner, well, they weren't invented yet. Also, those things get hot as fuck and are prone to failure without fairly advanced materials and fancy ceramic coatings.

>>31090817
failure prone fuel inefficient low thrust trash

>>31086888
>sooner
>what are the V1 and V2 rockets
They were weaponised practically AS they were invented.

>>31090395
>Have an example, a turbo jet made out of a toilet paper holder and a car turbo, with a drill and angle grinder:

>Have an example, a turbo made out of a turbo

fun fact: in rally cars, the turbos are often converted to burn fuel inside them to spool them up to eliminate turbo lag. turbos are literally already usable as turbine engines with a minimum of modification.

A turbo is actually, in fact, basically a turbine engine run in reverse -- the way it works is it takes hot "thrust" from your car's exhaust to spool up the turbine, instead of spooling up the turbine to create thrust.

>>31089830
>>31091776
>rockets are the same as jets

why are american gun nerds so fucking stupid? it's like owning an AR15 just rots your brain.

Boy, this "can we weaponize X" maymay sure is dank. :^)

>>31090395
a pulse jet like you see on instructables provides approximately zero thrust

modern jets require tons of moving parts because as soon as you introduce a rotating element, you now need bearings, and the way these things work relies on getting mad hot, so they have to be either temperature-insensitive or feature a lot of moving parts to enlarge or shrink things to maintain tolerance

thats before you even get into how fuel is going to get into the thing, how you'll adjust the throttle, etc

>>31087426
fun fact: one of the major hurdles to overcome in making a good nuclear bomb was all the timing that had to be done to get a good all-around detonation, and it was solved with complex lens-like forming of the explosives and control over details as minute as the lengths of wire used to actuate detonators

nukes are simple in theory but massively complicated to make work decently, let alone build

File: bro stop.jpg (309KB, 985x1108px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 985x1108px

>people who literally cannot fathom making a zip gun without using a 3d printer are now saying that jet engines are simple