/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11336515
A pretty long time to acquire all the right tooling to build an engine from nothing

>Roswell, 1947.
>Space Force, 2020.

>>11336515
>Magnesium alloys
About 70 years.

>>11336515
Not much difference. Wood, dope, fabric, crude cast metals, copper. Made mostly from basic universal materials.

>>11337361
Good luck making an angine from "crude cast metals"
Good luck with your 1850s dogshit batteries

>>11336515
if you could prove them it's working and possible, that alone would make them be able to build one fast. blueprints would be nice to look at a few times. sure they'd build a different one, but it'd accelerate our flight science by 50 years. really just going back with a plane and showing them it's possible and what it looks like. they'd easily build a plane in 3 years without blueprints.

>>11337375
>that alone would make them be able to build one fast
I highly doubt it

There were two major problems in early aircraft construction.

1) wing form/airfoil dynamics
2) propulsion

While the first one is easily solvable, by providing some random carpenter with schematics. The second one is a huge manufacturing and engineering problem, because the engine needs to be powerful and light enough.

>>11336515
about 70 years. The issue is making a power dense enough engine and that requires improvements in manufacturing and materials science which won't come from just the blueprints. It took some time for us to figure out how to do machining precise enough to make lightweight internal combustion engines. I think if you sent back enough books on machining and materials science from the WWI period that you'd have airplanes within 10 years. As in you wouldn't need to send back blueprints for airplanes, they'd just happen spontaneously.

>>11337369
They didn't even use batteries. Cast iron has been around forever. Internal combustion engines were already a thing in the 1850s. They could handle it if you dropped a blueprint in their laps. Flat head fords were used in some of the old garbage. Those engines weigh over 500 pounds and only 140 hp.

>>11337406
>The engine had no fuel pump, carburetor, or spark plugs. Nor did it have a throttle. Yet the simple motor produced 12 horsepower, an acceptable margin above the Wrights' minimum requirement of 8 horsepower

1/2 horsepower lawn mower engines are used in home built craft. Fabric pretty much airfoil shapes itself in relative wind. Propellers were a thing from boats and perfected by high school dropout bicycle mechanics. Let OP have this one.

>>11337917
>1/2 horsepower lawn mower
You do realize that is advanced technology by 1850s standards, right? It isn't that they wouldn't understand how it works, it's that the manufacturing capabilities of the time could not easily handle it.

>>11336515
It really depends on when their umbilical cords were clamped, and if they were vaccinated.

>>11337925
Do you think people used to be stupid? This automobile crossed the U.S.A. In 1903 not without breaking down. It was repaired, numerous times, major fucking repairs, by people who made nails and horseshoes and councel was taken from people who understood sewing machines or windmills. You were born into a world where you could use a computer or change a fuel injector because it was already there. As you point out. You don't need to invent something in order to look at it and understand. They had lathes. They had metallurgy.
>>11337929
There wasn't much of that going on either.

>>11338106
Then they should be fine.

>>11338106
You're completely missing my fucking point. Machine technology was a lot different in 1903.

>>11337727
this theory is retarded

>>11336515
>1850
African powered planes

>>11337369
You mean generators?

>>11338228
This was made in 1775. The shafts are pretty nice. It is machining equipment for making disks and pulleys well within acceptable tolerances of today's locomotives and shit. It was made from existing machines. Have you seen a lathe? They are pretty simple. Stock part spins and cutting tool is adjusted with a worm drive (screw.)
>>11338230
Yeah. These dudes are rebelling against their elders.
>>11338238
This but more specifically.
>Magnetos adapted to produce impulses of high voltage for spark plugs are used in the ignition systems of spark-ignition piston engines. Magnetos are used in piston aircraft engines for their reliability and simplicity, often in pairs. Motor sport vehicles such as motorcycles and snowmobiles may use magnetos because they are lighter in weight than an ignition system relying on a battery. Small internal combustion engines used for lawn mowers, chain saws, portable pumps and similar applications use magnetos for economy and weight reduction. Magnetos are not used in highway motor vehicles that have a cranking battery, which may need more ignition timing control than a magneto system can provide, though sophisticated solid state controllers are becoming more common.

>>11338253
>> disks and pulleys well within acceptable tolerances of today's locomotives and shit
bullshit. Absolute bullshit. The machining tolerance of early steam engine pistons were not that good. And sure they had lathes and machine tools, they just weren't that good. A big problem is not just building the engine, but building it so that it's reliable. Airplane engines have a lot of moving parts and because they tend to move fast, if they aren't built right they'll wear out too fast. And even simple components like precision screws, ball bearings, and cams are going to be difficult to come by. Hell, with 1850 tech, you might not even be able to measure if they're off tolerance. Oh yeah and let's not forget that biplane engines used aluminum, which in 1850 was more expensive than gold. Materials science and all the little tricks you use to precisely machine things take time to develop
>>11338106
>>Do you think people used to be stupid?
no. It just takes time to discover by trial and error all the little tricks to precisely machining things and materials science
>> It was repaired, numerous times, major fucking repairs,
some of which had to be accomplished by sending parts back to the factory

>>11338309
Aircraft piston engines have a minimal amount of parts. They operate at low a very low rpm. They do wear out too fast. Aluminum exists. Bearings are sleeves. Steam engine tolerances are required to be sloppy. Precision is achievable with turn coarse turn screws. Factories that used "shit" technology and zero knowledge. You should try an exclamation point after your "bullshit" and maybe you'd be right.

>>11336515
They'd have to modify the engine to make it run on whale oil.

>>11338253
That doesn't have anything to do with making a light weight and reliable internal combustion engine

>>11338433
>Aluminum exists
not in the fucking 1850s

>>11336515
Precision tooling wasn't there yet. Decades to make an actual copy, but being shown the principles of flight would let them make crude flying machines much earlier.

>>11339150
Yes it did and it isn't necessary for the production of the type of aircraft used in the Great War.
>>11339146
Why are you obsessed with weight and reliability?
Here is a liquid cooled cast iron V8 in an aircraft. Same shit as in garbage 1930s cars.

>>11339388
>Yes it did and it isn't necessary for the production of the type of aircraft used in the Great War.
What does this have to do with the 1850s you dense retard? The Bayer process didnt come around until 1888 at the earliest.

Lmao the idiots in this thread thinking that 1850 was some agrarian era where they had no knowledge of metallurgy and no ability to machine something. Gloire, the first true ironclad battleship was launched in 1859 and was immediately made obsolete by the HMS Warrior 1 year later featuring a complete iron hull. Merchant navy ships had already featured iron hulls at least a decade prior.

The op isnt asking them to build a fucking sopwith camel, not a spitfire. They absolutely would be able to reverse engineer it very quickly.

>>11339150
100% it did, you are retarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#History
>"The first industrial production of aluminium was established in 1856..."

>>11336515
They literally had all the tools, equipment and standards to make a early 1910s airplane once they get familiarized with flight mechanics.

Probably less than 5 years

>>11339402
The Washington monument is capped with aluminum and was made before whatever process you just googled there are confirmed practices from the 1820s not convenient or massive but, possible. Also, still not fucking needed. pic has to do with weight and reliability. Maybe you should comprehend before firing the retard cannon.

>>11339181
>Precision tooling wasn't there yet

I love the underaged retards on this board who are treating this as if it's an F-22 they are trying to assemble

With actual blueprints and state backing they would have a early 20th century flying machine up and running in under a year. None of these concepts are beyond their technical grasp.

>>11339415
Yeah! I bet the didn't know about submarines in the seventeen hundreds. People born before me are stupid.

>>11339417

This especially when oil lamps fuel was already produced by 1850. Early XXth century engines had high tolerance, giving room for errors and inaccuracies during the production process.

>>11337375
3 years is way too optimistic but I agree with the premise of your post.

>>11339455
Work on your reading comprehension.

>>11339577
Work on your understanding of sarcasm.

>>11337375
Ha. I didn't look at pic. "What are birds?"
>>11339415
>>11339455
Same team bro.

>>11338433
>>Aircraft piston engines have a minimal amount of parts
but still requires a great deal of machining
>> Bearings are sleeves
ball bearings hugely improved the reliability of rotating machinery. >>11339415
>>no ability to machine something
the issue was that they couldn't machine things very well. During the 1850s they hadn't quite figured out how to control all 3 axes on milling machines. Milling cutters weren't that good either. We didn't even have twist drill bits until 1861:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill_bit#Twist_drill_bits
And really three axis control came out of the need to manufacture components like twist drills, which were previously made by hand. There was a pretty big revolution in milling cutters starting in the 1860s-1870s. We had mills, but the problem was that milling cutters couldn't be sharpened without changing the clearance. It also took some time for people to trust a new design that enabled this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milling_cutter#History
https://books.google.com/books?id=d0rOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false
It took time to use machines to make better machines and it took time to develop the machining process such that complex parts could be machined. An example of how things take time is that Otto pretty much figured out the Otto cycle in 1862, but the engines he built didn't last longer than a couple of minutes. It took about 14 years of development to make a practical engine. Sure, having the magneto, carburetor, and what not invented for you would speed things up.

>>11340825
Why do you think that any of this matters? The mass production technology of today is insufficient for fitting aircraft parts. Do you realize that new parts are tested, inspected, reworked by hand before they are installed still today. There are high pressure metal to metal sealing surfaces with no gaskets made by blokes with arkansas stones. The machining capabilities of the time were acceptable but unnecessary. OP's task is to make "one." Not to create an industry of mass production.

>based thread

>>11337845
Aircraft engines run off magnetos.

>>11343359
Yes sir.

>>11343359
Sorry. Drunk posting.>>11343368
I mean.. tell that to this guy>>11337369

Triplefagging!

https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-three-plates-method