Comments: 19
Daxserv [2013-03-10 18:53:00 +0000 UTC]
Thank you much pleasure indeed
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
organicmcgee [2013-03-09 19:35:36 +0000 UTC]
I wonder if one could build a steam engine light enough in real-life to actually fly.
I mean, a flash boiler and triple(+) expansion engine is the way to go for a good power-to-weight ratio, but how light can you get them?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PaxAeternum In reply to organicmcgee [2013-03-09 19:46:12 +0000 UTC]
triple expansion would be too heavy for power delivery. Doubles are good for power efficiency balance, triples are good for efficiency only.
Sadly you are one of the millions of people who does not realise steam has already propelled itself into the sky.
Gustav Whitehead's steam powered airplane made a flight before the wright brothers did, however it was not documented as officially as it should have been, and an otherwise controlled flight ended in a crash due to confusion on board the craft while in flight. If you dont believe me, there is even a damages claim made by the stoker on board who was burned by the flash boiler releasing steam. Further flights of the craft met with more success, but not much noteriety. An exact replica of the craft in flight; [link]
Furthermore, and on a much less awkward note, the Besler steam biplane flew quite nimbly, agily and powerfully in the early 1930's!
[link]
[link]
the double expansion engine is preserved with its boiler. [link]
Sadly, Besler could not overcome the immense momentum built up in aircraft using the hyper-developed IC motor, and later of course the jet turbine. In this fictional world of mine, every fixed wing aircraft is steam powered past these experiments, and boast some very high power-density and economical designs indeed. Most if not all are natural gas burners, or pressurized kerosene burners.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
organicmcgee In reply to PaxAeternum [2013-03-09 20:03:12 +0000 UTC]
The only steam-flight I had heard about was that experimental one built by the Smithsonian a few years before the Wrights, which was launched off a houseboat and promptly slammed into the Potomac.
Any idea how heavy one of those steam set-ups were? I imagine they were comparable to IC engines of the time
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PaxAeternum In reply to organicmcgee [2013-03-09 20:11:20 +0000 UTC]
That was the Langley Aerodrome. THe smithsonian knows as much about proper engineering as I know about how to solve world hunger. In fact, the smithsonian was involved in a small conspiracy to make sure the wrights were given the title of first flyers, even though they KNEW whitehead's craft, as well as another built by Ezekiel, actually flew.
The steam setups weighed about as much, if not a little more, than an IC engine. However, many notable differences should be taken into consideration. An IC engine's torque decreases as it gets up to maximum speed, while its power only increases slightly with the RPM. A steam engine is a constant torque device through all RPM's, while its power steadily climbs with RPM. This means that even at a full stop, a steam engine can make full torque when trying to start. Another thing, an IC engine must idle and cannot be easily, if at all, restarted in flight.
A steam engine can not only stop fully, but be thrown into reverse, eliminating, once on the ground, the need for wheelbrakes. It also, when used tactfully, while in flight, can be used sparingly in reverse to eliminate the need for spoiler surfaces to slow down and lose lift quickly. THere are also less ways to cause a steam engine to stop running than an IC engine, and most of the problems that would stop a steam engine, aside from something like a pinhole in the boiler tubing itself, can actually be repaired in flight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
organicmcgee In reply to PaxAeternum [2013-03-09 20:21:40 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for the Info. I do recall being told about Besler, once upon a time, but I had quite forgotten it.
All that torque means short runways! Man.
It's been a dictum of mine that you don't have to go farther than the pages of a history book to find the best examples of steampunk, and here is yet more proof.
I've yet to see anything that couldn't be done with steam and mechanical systems.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PaxAeternum In reply to organicmcgee [2013-03-10 01:38:52 +0000 UTC]
I dont call it steampunk, which is art and fetishism at its worst, I call it real engineering.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
organicmcgee In reply to PaxAeternum [2013-03-10 01:47:19 +0000 UTC]
True, True
Steampunk does have far too many people in it who couldn't tell a brake line from a bifocal.
Perhaps I should instead say that I enjoy divergent technologies?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PaxAeternum In reply to organicmcgee [2013-03-10 01:54:28 +0000 UTC]
I would call what we live with NOW divergent technologies. THere was a time when steam did do everything the hand and lesser machine could not, INCLUDING fly. Anything it couldnt do wasnt worth doing, such as the idiotic wet dream of space travel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SteamRailwayCompany In reply to PaxAeternum [2013-03-10 20:47:42 +0000 UTC]
I don't know why anyone would want to live in space. The solar system is just for studying and admiring to my mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hieslar4 [2013-03-09 17:19:52 +0000 UTC]
This reminds me of the movie; Those Magnificant Men and Their Flying Machines.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
organicmcgee [2013-03-09 01:21:14 +0000 UTC]
Is there a picture of Fritz's craft?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PaxAeternum In reply to organicmcgee [2013-03-09 01:47:33 +0000 UTC]
yes, the fan-winged craft up on top. It is essentially what Whitehead built.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
organicmcgee In reply to PaxAeternum [2013-03-09 01:58:30 +0000 UTC]
Alrighty then. Very hydrodynamic fuselage, eh?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PaxAeternum In reply to organicmcgee [2013-03-09 04:57:44 +0000 UTC]
aerodynamic yes, just hydrodynamic enough to move through the water.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
organicmcgee [2013-03-08 21:42:25 +0000 UTC]
This is incredibly wonderful, but could you please break up your text block? The story is a marvel, but the formatting is a monster. As one of my profs says, "Paragraphs, young man, are you friends!"
Aside from that, these are most plausible steam-powered aerocontrivances which have ever graced the electric page.
Plus, the 'history' was well thought out, and entertaining, too!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
PaxAeternum In reply to organicmcgee [2013-03-08 23:29:19 +0000 UTC]
Paragraphs are harder to do when working on line. I love that tab key, apparently the HTML or whatever doesnt. 8(
Glad you like!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0