No rapid proliferation of jet engines

Jet engines quickly got used for passengerliners. So it would be easy for any country to get hold of one.
 
True, but they would be able to take advantage of technological developments which had occurred in the meantime. Like better material sciences.

True, how much that would or would not help with the prototypes I can't say. The question that comes to me is how hard is it to grasp all the math and physics that goes into making a jet engine? Not the basics but the nitty-gritty details that are sometimes hard to foresee. I admit I have no idea myself. Sometimes it is the minor adjustments you have to make to have it work that can kick you in the head.
 
Flights to non aligned and third world nations are fine but engine maintenance must be by non locals, sales to their airlines on the other hand are not.
 
With no Cold War, military development of jet engines would progress much slower.

With no Cold War, far fewer German scientists would have been admitted to the USA under Operation Paperclip. NATO would also have been far more reluctant to white-wash Nazi scientists’ involvement with slave labour and other neferious business practices.

Britain (deHavilland),and the USA (Boeing) could dominate trans-oceanic routes by assisting their flag-carriers in re-equipping with long-range jet airliners, but restricting jet airliner sales to second world nations.
Remember that Britain and the USA led the world in supercharger technology during WW2 .... and much of that expertise was directly transferable to jet engines.
Jet airliners’ program Mary advantage was their ability to cruise above major storms (e.g. thunderstorms) for much smoother rides.

With no Cold War far fewer small NATO nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, Italy, etc.) would have been needed as trip-wires and cannon-fodder, ergo buying far fewer, expensive, advanced weapons like fighter jets.

If the USA had known that bankrupt Britain was desperate enough to sell jet engine technology to Russia; they might have blocked the sale. Maybe they could have quietly convinced the Royal Canadian Navy to trade even more butter for ships.
Russia would eventually have developed jets from captured German technology, but that would have been a slow process as they re-built areas devastated during WW2.
 
True, how much that would or would not help with the prototypes I can't say. The question that comes to me is how hard is it to grasp all the math and physics that goes into making a jet engine? Not the basics but the nitty-gritty details that are sometimes hard to foresee. I admit I have no idea myself. Sometimes it is the minor adjustments you have to make to have it work that can kick you in the head.

It's an engineering problem, not a science one.
 
A jet engine is a pretty simple machine all in all. (Simple here meaning as opposed to complex, like piston engines are, not as in easy).
An inlet, a compressor, a turbine and a combustion chamber.
Turbine operates a compressor, which sends compressed air into a a combustion chamber where the air is mixed with fuel and evicted vide an outlet, running the turbine at the same time.
Much simpler than a piston engine.
 
I remember when cell phones first started to take off and they had a story on tv about places in Africa putting up cell towers and not running wire phone systems. People here could not understand that you did not have to have a wired system first. If you can afford the tech, people, money, time invested, means you can jump ahead.
Sort of. They are jumping ahead with the wetware and software parts. Eg an internet based economy. The actual hardware, the electronics is imported. Nothing wrong with that. It is pretty awesome. But it was 2nd, 3rd and 4th rate nations have always done. Buy fancy tech from those who can actually build it. You don't think a nation like Australia ever built everything it needed to give itself a 1st world lifestyle?

In the case of jet engines there is a heap of science and metallurgy to go through to get a jet engine. In nations with a starting position of not even being capable of building an internal combustion engine. Even if you can build an engine, then you have to be able to build an aircraft to put it in. I am not saying that it is impossible. Just hugely difficult for limited gains.
 
We are postulating that jet engine technology is limited by agreement.
No one is saying that every country on earth will make them. Simply that some who don’t OTL, will ITTL.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
True, how much that would or would not help with the prototypes I can't say. The question that comes to me is how hard is it to grasp all the math and physics that goes into making a jet engine? Not the basics but the nitty-gritty details that are sometimes hard to foresee. I admit I have no idea myself. Sometimes it is the minor adjustments you have to make to have it work that can kick you in the head.


Not very hard, actually.

Once you see a jet, the basic operating principle is amazingly simple.


Certainly some finer points will be missed initially, such as optimal blade angle, ratio of compressor fan radii, etc.


But there's no new math disciplines needed to understand vs piston engine design.



And even if theres trade bans on jets, the knowledge still leaks out. Hell, to be frank, there's probably enough publicly available information to construct your own hydrogen bomb if materials are no obstacle and you have a sufficient understanding of the math.


Sure it'll be inefficient, but fuck at that point, who really cares?
 
Not very hard, actually.

Once you see a jet, the basic operating principle is amazingly simple.


Certainly some finer points will be missed initially, such as optimal blade angle, ratio of compressor fan radii, etc.


But there's no new math disciplines needed to understand vs piston engine design.



And even if theres trade bans on jets, the knowledge still leaks out. Hell, to be frank, there's probably enough publicly available information to construct your own hydrogen bomb if materials are no obstacle and you have a sufficient understanding of the math.


Sure it'll be inefficient, but fuck at that point, who really cares?
The biggest issue in case of nuclear programmes is building the industrial infrastructure. A lot of the stuff needed for weapons has no real use in non military applications.

Any middling industrial country will have all the the infrastructure necessary to build a jet engine.
As for efficiency, that can easily be handled by sticking more of them on an aircraft. The mechanical simplicity of a gas turbine engine versus a Piston engine means that an engine failure rate it's a lot lower. Look at aircraft till the 60’s, they regularly stuck 4 or more engines on reletivley small airplanes, see for instance the Lockheed JetStar.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
If let's say this does happen then most of the world would be operating modernized versions of ww2 designs well into 60s
Which of these aircraft designs would likely be most popular?
Bearcat
F51
Hawker furies
LA-7
Pe-2
A-20 ?
 
Top