@CringyAsPlanes for there to be peace there must be WAR!

You’re a communist libtard I’m I’m unfollowing

@FarrowAirlines Long way to go, but theres always hope

I could comment and go on a rant about liberals like you, but I choose not to waste my time.

@MrTyTheGreat lol

Thanks WW3! You gave birth to this face!

War forces inovation

ironic how you just started a flame "war"

tru dat@MrTyTheGreat

That Earth looks like it wants to shove your head down a toilet. Don't trust it...

@Mostly It absolutely boosted the development of many things. I think we're on the same page. Development would continue, but slowly. Maybe not with the RAF, but in Germany or the USA, maybe even France (lol). I'm studying the 20's and 30's right now, tech was moving at an incredible rate even in the Great Depression. They had doubled the air-speed record to over 400mph in only 10 years, mostly due to advances in turbochargers.

@F104Deathtrap Nah, I actually think WW2 boosted the development of the jet engine, because it is stated on the info: "Whittle was unable to interest the government in his invention, and development continued at a slow pace." Had the war not happened, his idea would've never come back to life at such a pace, despite prototypes. Anyways, that's just my perspective on it.

@Mostly Absolutely. I can agree with that. But my point is that the technological innovations people attribute to WW2 would have come along just the same without all the carnage. The war effort certainly accelerated development, but many of these devices already existed as prototypes before the war and would have continued development at a slower pace in any event. Wars happen, and we'd be fools not to stay prepared, but it's also foolish to think of war as benevolent, just my opinion. (PS: Cannons actually evolved out of firearms instead of vice-versa. Weird, huh?)

@F104Deathtrap All I'm saying is the way you relate the 'first form of a jet engine was X' but that's like saying that the first form of a gun/musket was a cannon. But was it a gun? no, no it was not.

@Mostly The 003 wasn't the first functional jet engine, it wasn't even the first one to fly. The Heinkel 178 first flew a month before the war started, and research would have marched on had the war never happened. The BMW designs were good, but too early to be reliable. Had the war not rushed development, the first engines to see production would have been in the early 50's and probably would have been much better in terms of matallurgy.

@F104Deathtrap The first engine was "An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design", claimed by the creator, which had several processing stages throughout, but again, it was just one of those "bottle rocket" type designs, because it had the same pressurized liquid fuel running through it. The only difference was that it had a tube in between the fuel and "engine". but the reason it was never made as an engine was because it was never used an an actual "jet" propulsion platform, as to the BMW 003-e1, which was actually created and tested as a jet propulsion platform, then used in aircraft. That "engine" was only tested once. Heck, you could call it a air-conditioner if you wanted to.

@Mostly Turbofans did not see practical application untill the late 1950's in the form of the Rolls Royce Conway engine, but developmental experiments were conducted throughout the 40s.

Turbo-JETS, were constructed by German and English engineers throughout the 1930's. Here is a picture of Hans Ohain standing next to one of his engines in 1935, 4 years before WW2. Please understand that these designs were not pulled out of thin air, they were built around research and experiments that had been carried out for many, many decades. To declare the first practical application as "the invention" of something is to miss the entire point.

@F104Deathtrap Again, turbofan jet engines were made in WW2, those were the true jet engines, rockets existed for a considerable amount of time before the second world war.

@Mostly As I said, turbojet designs were produced in France and England throughout the first 3 decades of the 20th century. A common problem with history is that people fail to take a long view of things, they don't see the centuries of development and merely recognize a single "eureka" moment.

@iLikeipads nah abbreviations don't actually have as much vulgarity as the actual word itself.
@F104Deathtrap Those were rocket engines powered by liquid fuel, that means I could basically say the Chinese fireworks were the first jet engines ever made, they aren't, they are rocket fuses w/ gunpowder. The liquid engines were pressurized, then burned as a source of propulsion, that's not a jet engine.

@Mostly I'm not so sure you read all of what I was saying but basically the TLDR is that 9/10's of the tech we associate with WW2 was under development for many decades before it was rushed into wartime applications. The jet being a primary example. Yes, the first jet planes flew during the war but people had been building rockets and ramjets for centuries, and the first turbojet engines were designed throughout the first half of the 20th. Sure, huge developments were made in the 40's but they were the tip of a very old iceberg. I can discuss this at length if you want, but if you're just here for lulz thats fine too.

Yeah, I guess I’m just that type who wants to spread awareness. But it really doesn’t do any good.
@MrDoolittle

@Awsomur t h a n k u m a n

@Awsomur but alas it’s not your place, just report him and move on. That is all that is required.

No. Not by a long shot.
@Lahoski107