Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Scared on August 13, 2020, 01:32:03 PM

Title: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Scared on August 13, 2020, 01:32:03 PM
I was just sitting here thinking. I watched a video someone posted about p-47's the other day. It blew my mind. I guess I have taken technology for granted. I wonder if the planes we have today are really as great of a technological achievement as the ones we had 70 years ago. I mean think about this: today we have complicated computer simulations to model EVERYTHING about the design..before there is even a prototype! Back in the day they had freaking blue prints...paper...wind tunnels and little models. I mean I am no expert on this stuff, but I did think about this stuff. I hope you can get what I am saying. I guess I am just in awe of engineering and precision. How the hell did they pull this toejam off without computers? I guess the same could be said for the cotton gin or the Antikythera mechanism or other such things. Being an idiot at math...I am absolutely in awe of engineers. no edibles..just swag. <S>  :rock

Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Shuffler on August 13, 2020, 02:35:05 PM
Engineers back then were amazing. They are a dime a dozen now. The good ones are few and far between today.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Puma44 on August 13, 2020, 02:42:27 PM
I was just sitting here thinking. I watched a video someone posted about p-47's the other day. It blew my mind. I guess I have taken technology for granted. I wonder if the planes we have today are really as great of a technological achievement as the ones we had 70 years ago. I mean think about this: today we have complicated computer simulations to model EVERYTHING about the design..before there is even a prototype! Back in the day they had freaking blue prints...paper...wind tunnels and little models. I mean I am no expert on this stuff, but I did think about this stuff. I hope you can get what I am saying. I guess I am just in awe of engineering and precision. How the hell did they pull this toejam off without computers? I guess the same could be said for the cotton gin or the Antikythera mechanism or other such things. Being an idiot at math...I am absolutely in awe of engineers. no edibles..just swag. <S>  :rock



I agree completely.  Being a math Neanderthal, I’ve always been amazed by the technology that these genius engineers have come up with, especially the WWII aircraft.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Shuffler on August 13, 2020, 02:55:18 PM
Let me introduce you to the slide rule AKA the slipstick.... the computer of past generations.  :D

I still have one. LOL
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Chalenge on August 13, 2020, 07:12:23 PM
You're only old if you insist on having a slide rule on your computer.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Busher on August 13, 2020, 09:47:45 PM
I agree completely.  Being a math Neanderthal, I’ve always been amazed by the technology that these genius engineers have come up with, especially the WWII aircraft.

Always keep in mind that in this era of airplane design, much was achieved through experiment. As an example the Supermarine Spitfire, the brainchild of R.J. Mitchell was the result of a few redesigns and largely based upon his experience with the Schneider Trophy seaplanes.
The other factor was cost. There was a war approaching and there was plenty of Government money to build prototypes... if they worked, they sold... if they didn't, they were scrapped or modified.
I have the greatest respect for the engineers of today that can digitally design an airplane and know that it will fly properly when the first flying example is built.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Scared on August 14, 2020, 11:46:14 PM
i dont know i feel like I have branded myself as a moron, but I am still in awe. The technological singularity is coming and I hope I am dead before it happens.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Puma44 on August 15, 2020, 12:23:23 AM
Always keep in mind that in this era of airplane design, much was achieved through experiment. As an example the Supermarine Spitfire, the brainchild of R.J. Mitchell was the result of a few redesigns and largely based upon his experience with the Schneider Trophy seaplanes.
The other factor was cost. There was a war approaching and there was plenty of Government money to build prototypes... if they worked, they sold... if they didn't, they were scrapped or modified.
I have the greatest respect for the engineers of today that can digitally design an airplane and know that it will fly properly when the first flying example is built.

...and then there’s the timeless Mustang designed by slide rule and pencil.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Mongoose on August 17, 2020, 10:24:29 AM
Take a look at something simple, like a pen.  Look at how and why it works.  Think of the design process that went into that simple device. 

Now look at your computer desk.  You put each thing in a specific place for a specific purpose.  In some cases, that thing is in that specific spot just because that's where it landed.  But your mouse, keyboard, and joystick are in specific places because that is what works best for you.  Expand that process thousands of times and that is what engineering is.

A big Salute to the people who design things and make them work. 
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Ashley Pomeroy on August 19, 2020, 02:44:42 PM
I've long been fascinated with the Pilatus PC-9:
(https://i.imgur.com/CJUb0cGl.jpg)

It's a turboprop sold as a trainer but also as a light attack aircraft - it's the closest thing to a modern-day WW2 fighter. The performance figures are actually less impressive than late-war aircraft but I assume it's cheaper, lighter, more reliable, and probably a lot more capable in the air-to-ground role. My hunch is that WW2 designers almost reached the upper limit of what you could do with a propeller aircraft, and if jets had never been invented most innovations post-WW2 would have been incremental.

A while back I read Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and that gave me a renewed respect for what people could do in the first half of the century. Atomic physics essentially began with people shining radiation sources through pieces of gold foil with slits cut in them, and looking at tiny particles with microscopes. The early experiments were unbelievably primitive by modern standards.

The thing that really struck me was the construction of Fat Man. That was an implosion-type bomb. The idea of packing explosives around a central core and detonating them at exactly the same fraction of a second - so that the shockwave forms a perfectly spherical implosion wave that travels through the uranium core - sounds hard enough but was fiendishly difficult with 1940s technology. It required input from a pool of explosives experts, in addition to the pool of chemical experts that developed the uranium refinery, plus the atomic experts.

It really brought home how hopeless the German and Japanese bomb-making projects were. They would never have been able to refine uranium and it would have taken years before they could assemble a bomb because they simply didn't have the mass of experts required (and their enrichment plants would probably have been bombed into oblivion).

I understand that fusion weapons are designed so that the interior of the case focuses the explosive shockwave of the fission stage so that it implodes the fusion stage, which again is extraordinary for the 1950s. Imagine the theory that went into designing a case that could - for a tiny fraction of a second - reflect the force of an atomic explosion, and the manufacturing precision required to not only construct one of these devices, but thousands of them.

And make them robust enough that the radiation doesn't fry the circuits, and shockproof enough that the ground crew can handle them. Also shockproof enough that they can be blasted into space on an ICBM and then withstand re-entry. Hard science! It's fantastic.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Shuffler on August 19, 2020, 03:17:05 PM
Today you could not keep it secret here. Too many folks living here that hate Americans and our country.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Cluzig on November 26, 2020, 02:25:02 AM
I've long been fascinated with the Pilatus PC-9:
(https://i.imgur.com/CJUb0cGl.jpg)

It's a turboprop sold as a trainer but also as a light attack aircraft - it's the closest thing to a modern-day WW2 fighter. The performance figures are actually less impressive than late-war aircraft but I assume it's cheaper, lighter, more reliable, and probably a lot more capable in the air-to-ground role. My hunch is that WW2 designers almost reached the upper limit of what you could do with a propeller aircraft, and if jets had never been invented most innovations post-WW2 would have been incremental.

A while back I read Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and that gave me a renewed respect for what people could do in the first half of the century. Atomic physics essentially began with people shining radiation sources through pieces of gold foil with slits cut in them, and looking at tiny particles with microscopes. The early experiments were unbelievably primitive by modern standards.

The thing that really struck me was the construction of Fat Man. That was an implosion-type bomb. The idea of packing explosives around a central core and detonating them at exactly the same fraction of a second - so that the shockwave forms a perfectly spherical implosion wave that travels through the uranium core - sounds hard enough but was fiendishly difficult with 1940s technology. It required input from a pool of explosives experts, in addition to the pool of chemical experts that developed the uranium refinery, plus the atomic experts.

It really brought home how hopeless the German and Japanese bomb-making projects were. They would never have been able to refine uranium and it would have taken years before they could assemble a bomb because they simply didn't have the mass of experts required (and their enrichment plants would probably have been bombed into oblivion).

I understand that fusion weapons are designed so that the interior of the case focuses the explosive shockwave of the fission stage so that it implodes the fusion stage, which again is extraordinary for the 1950s. Imagine the theory that went into designing a case that could - for a tiny fraction of a second - reflect the force of an atomic explosion, and the manufacturing precision required to not only construct one of these devices, but thousands of them.

And make them robust enough that the radiation doesn't fry the circuits, and shockproof enough that the ground crew can handle them. Also shockproof enough that they can be blasted into space on an ICBM and then withstand re-entry. Hard science! It's fantastic.

Boy I never ever thought I'd see an Irish A10 aka a Pilatus on these forums.
We even have them fitted with one 50 cal. I'd say a p39 had more firepower. We don't even have jets.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Devil 505 on November 26, 2020, 10:11:34 AM
Today you could not keep it secret here. Too many folks living here that hate Americans and our country.

You've been spewing a ton of ignorant crap here the last year or so, but this my be the most ignorant statement you've made yet.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Shuffler on November 26, 2020, 09:02:25 PM
You've been spewing a ton of ignorant crap here the last year or so, but this my be the most ignorant statement you've made yet.

Your ignorance is not mine. I stated a fact.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Devil 505 on November 26, 2020, 09:49:28 PM
Your ignorance is not mine. I stated a fact.

Looks like an ignorant opinion to me.

But I'm game. If it's fact, then please post some sources. I'll wait. 
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Shuffler on November 27, 2020, 05:36:51 AM
Looks like an ignorant opinion to me.

But I'm game. If it's fact, then please post some sources. I'll wait.

If you read the news you would know.

You should also know politics are not allowed here. This will lead to politics as it always does. At this point I have to take it you are not from the US.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Spikes on November 27, 2020, 08:52:03 AM
At this point I have to take it you are not from the US.
Do you not know where Cape Cod is?  :rofl
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Shuffler on November 27, 2020, 10:03:38 AM
Do you not know where Cape Cod is?  :rofl
Have no idea where he is from.... just figured from his lack of knowledge about current events here.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Devil 505 on November 27, 2020, 10:58:29 AM
If you read the news you would know.

You should also know politics are not allowed here. This will lead to politics as it always does. At this point I have to take it you are not from the US.

Seems to me that you were the one to bring political talk into this thread with your baseless rhetoric. All I did was call you out for making this behavior a frequent habit.

Have no idea where he is from.... just figured from his lack of knowledge about current events here.

Again, where do you get your "news" from? I'm willing to bet both you and your "news" share the same problem where opinion is mistaken for fact.



Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Shuffler on November 27, 2020, 12:02:56 PM
Seems to me that you were the one to bring political talk into this thread with your baseless rhetoric. All I did was call you out for making this behavior a frequent habit.

Again, where do you get your "news" from? I'm willing to bet both you and your "news" share the same problem where opinion is mistaken for fact.
You seem to act like you were outed.

Keep ignoring what has been going on. It's your life and family. Your responsibility.

I take care of my own.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Devil 505 on November 27, 2020, 12:17:00 PM
Ok, you keep drinking the Kool-aid.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Puma44 on December 04, 2020, 09:28:48 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/3Nd5ks4h/93-C4-FDE8-FBA1-4-C7-C-81-CD-5-B5-F7-E8-C5-C6-E.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)open gas stations in my area (https://gasstation-nearme.com/open-24-hours)
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: save on December 26, 2020, 10:58:05 AM
Most impressive for me in the WWII propeller planes was the Kommandogeräte that automatically set engine parameters you manually had to set in allied designs.
Title: Re: ww2 tech vs modern tech
Post by: Rich46yo on January 23, 2021, 05:26:20 AM
I was just sitting here thinking. I watched a video someone posted about p-47's the other day. It blew my mind. I guess I have taken technology for granted. I wonder if the planes we have today are really as great of a technological achievement as the ones we had 70 years ago. I mean think about this: today we have complicated computer simulations to model EVERYTHING about the design..before there is even a prototype! Back in the day they had freaking blue prints...paper...wind tunnels and little models. I mean I am no expert on this stuff, but I did think about this stuff. I hope you can get what I am saying. I guess I am just in awe of engineering and precision. How the hell did they pull this toejam off without computers? I guess the same could be said for the cotton gin or the Antikythera mechanism or other such things. Being an idiot at math...I am absolutely in awe of engineers. no edibles..just swag. <S>  :rock

Even during WW2 there was a Tech revolution. Think about it? LO and stealth first became a reality during the war. Proximity fuses, wire guided anti-ship bombs, IRBM ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, self guiding torpedos "FIDO" and I believe the Germans made them to. Jet airplanes, atomic bombs, long range heavy Bombers, pressurized interiors of airplanes, advanced radars and naval gunnery systems, sarin and soman, radar guided night fighters, code breaking, flight guidance systems....and the list goes on.

Much of what we have today, and dream of for tomorrow, are advances of tech that first appeared in WW2. Modern "Hyper War" has its roots in WW2, tho of course few back then could probably have dreamed of whats available today. Still the 8 years of war saw an incredible maturation of technology.

Winston Churchill was an avid tech geek. Nothing was to "hair brained" for him to want to back it and was probably the first modern world leader to believe without doubt that he with the best technology would win a war.