Aircraft question

Randomiser wrote:Fascinating reference Dilandu. These airships were prone to structural deterioration from water penetration and none of them had a long service life, but the best carried out 37 missions in WW1.

Silverwall wrote:

Having built a frame we now need to fill it. w. At least they don't need anything beyond thier tech base for the gas bags and no rubber either if they go the cowguts and glue route. As for filling the bags in our world hydrolysis came first in 1895 but for safehold this is not viable for the obvious reasons.

ewlandmine99 wrote:

Not quite right. There has been at least one heavier than air craft that made a successful flight. Google steam aircraft for an account of the Bessler brothers aircraft in 1933. Interesting.

Don

-

Don, I still would argue that, while it might fly, it would be very impractical. How much fuel could it carry? How long to get steam up? How long could it maintain steam with available fuel? How long til it runs out of water? If you want a useful range and a useful payload in an airplane, steam is not the answer.

Dilandu wrote:

Silverwall wrote:

Having built a frame we now need to fill it. w. At least they don't need anything beyond thier tech base for the gas bags and no rubber either if they go the cowguts and glue route. As for filling the bags in our world hydrolysis came first in 1895 but for safehold this is not viable for the obvious reasons.

Er, the chemical production of hydrogen were known long before hydrolysis.

Silverwall wrote:Sorry I should have clarified that I am referring to industrial scale production suitable for the volumes of a airship. Most of the methods prior to those I listed are not on the requisite industrial scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... chnologies certainly historically the steam iron process and the Lane hydogen producer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_hydrogen_producer was used for most hydrogen manufacture prior to the more sophisticated steam reformation process invented in the 20's. This includes most of the heyday of zeppelins though the less efficient water gas precursor process could also be used. The big advantage of the steam iron process and the lane reactor is much less filtering of CO out of the hydrogen gas left by the basic water gas process. This CO contamination is not a problem for domestic applications such as gas burners and stoves but is a major issue as a lifting gas.

Dilandu wrote:

Silverwall wrote:Sorry I should have clarified that I am referring to industrial scale production suitable for the volumes of a airship. Most of the methods prior to those I listed are not on the requisite industrial scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... chnologies certainly historically the steam iron process and the Lane hydogen producer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_hydrogen_producer was used for most hydrogen manufacture prior to the more sophisticated steam reformation process invented in the 20's. This includes most of the heyday of zeppelins though the less efficient water gas precursor process could also be used. The big advantage of the steam iron process and the lane reactor is much less filtering of CO out of the hydrogen gas left by the basic water gas process. This CO contamination is not a problem for domestic applications such as gas burners and stoves but is a major issue as a lifting gas.

As far as I knew, all World War I airships were filled by hydrogen, obtained by chemical methods. Electrolysis weren't used, simply because there weren't enough energy sources in field conditions to produce sufficient quantites.

The main method was to use sodium hydroxide, ferrosilicon, and water. All World War I hydrogen generators - and World War I required quite a lot of hydrogen, for airships and baloons - used the ferrosilicon method.

n7axw wrote:...ariel recon...

ewlandmine99 wrote:How you power the aircraft is pretty much irrelevant to how controllable it is. The forces acting on an aircraft in flight are gravity, lift, drag and thrust. Your engine is the thrust part and it does not really effect the others (quibble here because the torque from the engine has to be counteracted, but I'm keeping it simple).

The real issue with steam power in aircraft is power to weight ratio. There is no way to build a steam engine both light enough and powerful enough to be carried on an airplane. You might be able to do it with a lighter than air craft such as a dirigible. However, you will not be able to locate that engine anywhere near where you would want the thrust, hence you add even more weight, getting your power where you need it. Given where you would need to place the boiler, and its all important firebox, and the the craft is probably using hydrogen for lift you would probably be re-enacting the Hindenburg. This goes even more for launching rockets from the thing.

You would probably be much better trying to figure out how to do an internal combustion engine without electric sparkplugs (diesel anyone?). I'm not certain anyone has ever put a diesel engine on an airplane or not.

Finally, bombs, not rockets. I've already mentioned the issues with launching rockets from a dirigible. The early airplanes were made of wood with lacquered cloth covering the wings. We did not start shooting rockets from airplanes until we had advanced to all metal aircraft.

Hope this helps.

"To err is human, to forgive is not SAC policy"

C. O. Thompson wrote:Perhaps control would not be out of the reach of the tech that Charis is already using in the pistol works. Steam, run through pipes and hoses to drive the various work stations could be used from a relatively small boiler to drive various turbines or props as needed to change direction... since the aircraft is buoyant, they would not have to be powerful enough to lift it, only steer it. Of course, in heavy winds that could be more of a problem but, with Owl to advise about weather, the worst of this would be felt by the GoF as they try to duplicate this latest advantage of the "heretics"

November 8!! the countdown is on!!

ewlandmine99 wrote:How you power the aircraft is pretty much irrelevant to how controllable it is. The forces acting on an aircraft in flight are gravity, lift, drag and thrust. Your engine is the thrust part and it does not really effect the others (quibble here because the torque from the engine has to be counteracted, but I'm keeping it simple).

The real issue with steam power in aircraft is power to weight ratio. There is no way to build a steam engine both light enough and powerful enough to be carried on an airplane. You might be able to do it with a lighter than air craft such as a dirigible. However, you will not be able to locate that engine anywhere near where you would want the thrust, hence you add even more weight, getting your power where you need it. Given where you would need to place the boiler, and its all important firebox, and the the craft is probably using hydrogen for lift you would probably be re-enacting the Hindenburg. This goes even more for launching rockets from the thing.

You would probably be much better trying to figure out how to do an internal combustion engine without electric sparkplugs (diesel anyone?). I'm not certain anyone has ever put a diesel engine on an airplane or not.

Finally, bombs, not rockets. I've already mentioned the issues with launching rockets from a dirigible. The early airplanes were made of wood with lacquered cloth covering the wings. We did not start shooting rockets from airplanes until we had advanced to all metal aircraft.

Hope this helps.

"To err is human, to forgive is not SAC policy"

The ship appears to have run into problems as it was making its way back onto the ground, when it flew into a telegraph pole and began running into problems.

"A line that was hanging down from the plane hit the telegraph pole about two fields away," one eyewitness said. "Then, as it came in to land, it seemed to nose dive and landed on the cockpit, smashing it up."