Hot Air and the start of Flight

fallsfromtrees wrote:
And you are going to power it how?

With one Thirsk's crank propellers???

Don

fallsfromtrees wrote:

anwi wrote:Well, I haven't read any convincing arguments as to why the EoC should go down that route now or in the near future.

Dilandu wrote:There was a lot of them.

anwi wrote:For a start, they probably still haven't officially discovered hydrogen. If they have, how to produce it in quantities without electricity?

Dilandu wrote:Simple chemistry. Sulfuric acid on iron filling.

anwi wrote:If you could do the latter, how to store it without large losses? Transport to the frontlines is an issue as well.

Dilandu wrote:Frontline gas generators, as in US Civil War in 1860th

anwi wrote:Finally, the Zeppelin or blimp type vessels discussed so far require quite some effort, although they might be viable with Safehold materials.

Dilandu wrote:Their cost would be mo more than 1/20-1/10 of KH's

AirTech wrote:You could of course skip the lot and start making Piper Cubs (the full drawing sets are available on the internet). (Next question is do you build E-2's, J-3's, L-4's, L-14's, L-18's, L-21's, U-7's, PA-11's,PA-18's or PA-19's (or TG-8's, or Cubby's) to start with....) A Cub is much harder to hit than a balloon and can carry serious teeth (3" rockets are nothing to laugh at).

And you are going to power it how?

Rubber Bands, they gots lots and lots of Big Rubber Bands.

I think we all need another snippet...

Don

n7axw wrote:I think we all need another snippet...

Don

Definitely feels like SDS is setting in.

n7axw wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:
And you are going to power it how?

With one Thirsk's crank propellers???

Don

The Piper Cub E-2 managed to get airborne with a 35hp engine. A steam power plant should be able to deliver this output (and similar sizes steam aeroengines were built and flown (http://wow-really.blogspot.com.au/2007/ ... flies.html)(http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/051752.pdf)). A condenser to capture the water in the exhaust would help with its problems) (Or just build a small diesel engine - could be used in small tractors too). (35HP is what the VW Beetle puts out in stock condition).
A Piper Cub TG-8 is a three place glider (3 pilots actually), and as such has no power plant - and 95% parts compatibility with the Piper Observer O-58/ Grasshopper L-4 / Cub J-3 (most of them were converted to powered aircraft after the war). The Piper XLNP-1 was a glide bomb with a 900lb warhead built from a TG-8 (a 1800lb warhead version was cancelled).
This compares with the multiple 150hp plus engines fitted to the Zeppelin companies products and no hydrogen gas bags. (More (or possibly less) bang for your buck).
Short range matters less for a plane that flies from just behind your lines to just behind your opponents....

fallsfromtrees wrote:
And you are going to power it how?

n7axw wrote:With one Thirsk's crank propellers???

Don

AirTech wrote:
The Piper Cub E-2 managed to get airborne with a 35hp engine. A steam power plant should be able to deliver this output (and similar sizes steam aeroengines were built and flown (http://wow-really.blogspot.com.au/2007/ ... flies.html)(http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/051752.pdf)). A condenser to capture the water in the exhaust would help with its problems) (Or just build a small diesel engine - could be used in small tractors too). (35HP is what the VW Beetle puts out in stock condition).
A Piper Cub TG-8 is a three place glider (3 pilots actually), and as such has no power plant - and 95% parts compatibility with the Piper Observer O-58/ Grasshopper L-4 / Cub J-3 (most of them were converted to powered aircraft after the war). The Piper XLNP-1 was a glide bomb with a 900lb warhead built from a TG-8 (a 1800lb warhead version was cancelled).
This compares with the multiple 150hp plus engines fitted to the Zeppelin companies products and no hydrogen gas bags. (More (or possibly less) bang for your buck).
Short range matters less for a plane that flies from just behind your lines to just behind your opponents....

IC engines until after the CoGA is overthrown are a no-no. To much danger of convincing Joe Peasant that you really are worshiping Shan-Wei. You can't afford that at this time.

fallsfromtrees wrote:
IC engines until after the CoGA is overthrown are a no-no. To much danger of convincing Joe Peasant that you really are worshiping Shan-Wei. You can't afford that at this time.

Well hopefully I edited the quote train properly!
In any case, the problem with an Internal Combustion Engine isn't the peasants. It will be the bloody great rock falling from the sky.
An internal combustion engine is a wonderful electromagnetic noise source. Couple an immensely detectable spark gap transmitter (which is what an ICE is) with a regular frequency beat (the RPM rate of the engine) in a localized location (And what satellite constellation can't do triangulation) and even the dumbest, most poorly programmed, NO Tech allowed, computer program is going to react. Nope, worries about peasant reactions are not the problem at that point. Precision guided kinetic kill strikes, however, are a cat of an entirely different color. This is why I argued for diesel engines in a previous post train here on the forum. Diesels are heat engines only. Simple compression. MUCH less detectable than an ICE, and for that matter far more compact, I would argue, than a steam engine of comparable output power. If I recall though, the general consensuses was that the machining capability was not yet up to producing the parts. Not sure I agreed, but that's what I recall. Also the need for precision types of alloys was the other argument against, again if my memory is correct. And again I'm not sure I agree.
ON the other hand I do recognize that Safehold's grasp of chemistry is still very weak, so the grasp on precision metallurgy may also be weak. Without demand (Which I doubt there's been till Charis started it's industrialization phase) metals such as chromium, manganese, boron, etc. simply may not have been in demand, mined, or produced in any quantity. Indeed it's possible no one even recognized them as anything useful at all.

Larry

Larry wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:
IC engines until after the CoGA is overthrown are a no-no. To much danger of convincing Joe Peasant that you really are worshiping Shan-Wei. You can't afford that at this time.

Well hopefully I edited the quote train properly!
In any case, the problem with an Internal Combustion Engine isn't the peasants. It will be the bloody great rock falling from the sky.
An internal combustion engine is a wonderful electromagnetic noise source. Couple an immensely detectable spark gap transmitter (which is what an ICE is) with a regular frequency beat (the RPM rate of the engine) in a localized location (And what satellite constellation can't do triangulation) and even the dumbest, most poorly programmed, NO Tech allowed, computer program is going to react. Nope, worries about peasant reactions are not the problem at that point. Precision guided kinetic kill strikes, however, are a cat of an entirely different color. This is why I argued for diesel engines in a previous post train here on the forum. Diesels are heat engines only. Simple compression. MUCH less detectable than an ICE, and for that matter far more compact, I would argue, than a steam engine of comparable output power. If I recall though, the general consensuses was that the machining capability was not yet up to producing the parts. Not sure I agreed, but that's what I recall. Also the need for precision types of alloys was the other argument against, again if my memory is correct. And again I'm not sure I agree.
ON the other hand I do recognize that Safehold's grasp of chemistry is still very weak, so the grasp on precision metallurgy may also be weak. Without demand (Which I doubt there's been till Charis started it's industrialization phase) metals such as chromium, manganese, boron, etc. simply may not have been in demand, mined, or produced in any quantity. Indeed it's possible no one even recognized them as anything useful at all.

Larry

Actually you do have to worry about Joe Peasant - because you could end up losing the support of your own population, and in that case, you are toast.

fallsfromtrees wrote:Actually you do have to worry about Joe Peasant - because you could end up losing the support of your own population, and in that case, you are toast.

If you can get Joe Peasant to accept steam engines, diesels aren't that much of a leap. Going diesel would be cutting out the water/steam middleman and what goes on inside the cylinders isn't all that different from what goes on in every gun and cannon already in use by both sides (ie, explosions being used to push things).

If I recall though, the general consensuses was that the machining capability was not yet up to producing the parts. Not sure I agreed, but that's what I recall. Also the need for precision types of alloys was the other argument against, again if my memory is correct. And again I'm not sure I agree.

Please. The light and relatively powerfull steam engines were avaliable even in 1850th. And the Charisians currently at the 1890th at least technological level (...after all, they are able to just condense all the industry from the thin air... )