Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Aircraft question

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:08 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

n7axw wrote:

The Wrights worked systematically with kites and gliders along with observing birds, working with wind tunnels, etc. IIRC they didn't have a serious crackup that caused injury until the incident where they were demonstrating the plane for the government where Orville was seriously injured.

Don

-


Exactly. They have a lot of data to work with.

And I just decide to show what could happens if somebody would try to design planes, based only on the lifting powers of the wings)

Still, I think that the airships would be better solution. They could be easily understood by the majority of populations. They could easily avoid any possible problem with Proscriptions, by just claiming "flying? Of course nom only Archangels and God's own birds and wyverns could fly! We are merely floating in air, like ships float in water - and it's obvious, that there is nothing in Proscriptions which forbade floating!". And, they are generally more capable and less dangerous on the avaliable technological level. Oh, and they are quite impressive, actually.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by n7axw   » Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:17 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5603
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Dilandu wrote:
n7axw wrote:

The Wrights worked systematically with kites and gliders along with observing birds, working with wind tunnels, etc. IIRC they didn't have a serious crackup that caused injury until the incident where they were demonstrating the plane for the government where Orville was seriously injured.

Don

-


Exactly. They have a lot of data to work with.

And I just decide to show what could happens if somebody would try to design planes, based only on the lifting powers of the wings)

Still, I think that the airships would be better solution. They could be easily understood by the majority of populations. They could easily avoid any possible problem with Proscriptions, by just claiming "flying? Of course nom only Archangels and God's own birds and wyverns could fly! We are merely floating in air, like ships float in water - and it's obvious, that there is nothing in Proscriptions which forbade floating!". And, they are generally more capable and less dangerous on the avaliable technological level. Oh, and they are quite impressive, actually.


Compared with planes, airships and balloons are a pretty limited idea.

Time elapsed between first powered controlled flight at Kitty Hawk and Lindberg's flight over the Atlantic: 24 years. Things moved pretty fast, didn't they... :D

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Duckk   » Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:59 pm

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:29 pm

Compared with planes, airships and balloons are a pretty limited idea.


Perfect is the enemy of good. Charis built iron-clad, wooden-hulled galleons, even though they had steamers in the pipeline. I see no reason why they can't develop a balloon corps while they work on ironing out the kinks in aircraft engineering. It's still going to take years of hard word to develop the airframe, propeller, and engine that enables anything more than a controlled crash.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Aug 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

n7axw wrote:
Compared with planes, airships and balloons are a pretty limited idea.


Oh yeah. If you have aluminium and internal combustion gasoline engines)

If you stuck with steam engines and wood planking, the airships is lightyear more capable.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by n7axw   » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:30 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5603
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Duckk wrote:
Compared with planes, airships and balloons are a pretty limited idea.


Perfect is the enemy of good. Charis built iron-clad, wooden-hulled galleons, even though they had steamers in the pipeline. I see no reason why they can't develop a balloon corps while they work on ironing out the kinks in aircraft engineering. It's still going to take years of hard word to develop the airframe, propeller, and engine that enables anything more than a controlled crash.



No reason. Not really. It took the Wrights 4 years from the start of their project to the first controlled flight. Im not sure how long it took to move to wooden and later on aluminum craft. There really isn't anything about the tech that would beyond reach were they to start focusing on it. Developing a steam engine both small enough and powerful enough to suit the purpose might be the most challenging part of the project.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Silverwall   » Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:16 pm

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:53 pm

Developing a steam engine both small enough and powerful enough to suit the purpose might be the most challenging part of the project.

Don

-


actually for an Aero steam engine keeping it fueled consistantly and avoiding issues with fluid slosh in the boilers will be the big ones. Steam engines do not like pitch and roll which are inevitable in aircraft, especially small ones. 100% recycling of feed water will also be a huge issue. Gearing up the to the propeller will also be a major issue propellers like high RPM, steam engines are usually an order of magniture lower RPM.

Size and power are secondary in my mind to these issues.

Also appart from reconnisance what significant military purpose do these aircraft serve? Early aircraft are inferior is all ways to tube artillery: logistical pigs to keep going, requiring large ground crews, terrible ordinance lifting capacity and low rate of fire with terrible accuracy.

EDIT** I suggest reading http://www.flyingkettle.com/besler6.htm on the 1933 bessler steam engine, it is clear that it is relying on technologies such as spark ignition of an atomized heavy fuel oil into the burner with an electric fan to function so this will be a major issue to overcome in a proscriptions environment.
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Dilandu   » Fri Aug 19, 2016 7:11 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Silverwall wrote:
Size and power are secondary in my mind to these issues.

Also appart from reconnisance what significant military purpose do these aircraft serve? Early aircraft are inferior is all ways to tube artillery: logistical pigs to keep going, requiring large ground crews, terrible ordinance lifting capacity and low rate of fire with terrible accuracy.

.


"He is just a platypus, they don't do much" (c)

Even the primitive aircraft were superior to artillery in one quality. Range. Aircraft that could deliver bomb on the 50 km range could reach where the most powerfull monster-guns couldn't. And the accuracy of aircraft did not decrease with range.

And besides the tactical use, the aircrafts have strategical. They could attack enemy tterritory far away from frontlines. They could bomb ports, factories, transport nodes, hampering the military efforts.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by n7axw   » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:01 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5603
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Silverwall wrote:
Developing a steam engine both small enough and powerful enough to suit the purpose might be the most challenging part of the project.

Don

-


actually for an Aero steam engine keeping it fueled consistantly and avoiding issues with fluid slosh in the boilers will be the big ones. Steam engines do not like pitch and roll which are inevitable in aircraft, especially small ones. 100% recycling of feed water will also be a huge issue. Gearing up the to the propeller will also be a major issue propellers like high RPM, steam engines are usually an order of magniture lower RPM.

Size and power are secondary in my mind to these issues.

Also appart from reconnisance what significant military purpose do these aircraft serve? Early aircraft are inferior is all ways to tube artillery: logistical pigs to keep going, requiring large ground crews, terrible ordinance lifting capacity and low rate of fire with terrible accuracy.

EDIT** I suggest reading http://www.flyingkettle.com/besler6.htm on the 1933 bessler steam engine, it is clear that it is relying on technologies such as spark ignition of an atomized heavy fuel oil into the burner with an electric fan to function so this will be a major issue to overcome in a proscriptions environment.


Hey, I'm no techie.... The 1933 Besler was what I was visualizing more or less. I agree that there are obstacles to overcome. I don't think they are insurmountable, however.

Just muttering... I wonder if they could use pressurized gas as a substitute for the fan... or why water could simply be routed bak to the tank...oh .well, as I said, I'm no techie...I just mutter from time to time :D

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Silverwall   » Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:16 pm

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:53 pm

Dilandu wrote:
Silverwall wrote:
Size and power are secondary in my mind to these issues.

Also appart from reconnisance what significant military purpose do these aircraft serve? Early aircraft are inferior is all ways to tube artillery: logistical pigs to keep going, requiring large ground crews, terrible ordinance lifting capacity and low rate of fire with terrible accuracy.

.


"He is just a platypus, they don't do much" (c)

Even the primitive aircraft were superior to artillery in one quality. Range. Aircraft that could deliver bomb on the 50 km range could reach where the most powerfull monster-guns couldn't. And the accuracy of aircraft did not decrease with range.

And besides the tactical use, the aircrafts have strategical. They could attack enemy tterritory far away from frontlines. They could bomb ports, factories, transport nodes, hampering the military efforts.


WW1 deep bombing was to be honest a complete non event militarily. It didn't disrupt logistics and the civilian bombing just made the targets mad. Strategic bombing was a waste of resources because of the lack of technique, suitable weapons and accuracy. Even in WW2 strategic bombing was mainly a waste and the effort to disrupt deep logistics took huge effort which was most effective when attacking precious rail stock.

The best way to impliment accurate attacks prior to electronic bombsights was with dive bombing (stukas etcetera) and while capable of going deeper than artillery they are still best applied to tactical targets.

Don: The technical details are infinately more complex when you don't have electricity. The big one is that you MUST have a liquid fueled engine which requires some sort of fuel pump (solid fuels and an open fire box on an aircraft are rediculous ideas). Unlike an Infernal combustion engine a steam engine takes a long time to build up power and until it does the fuel pump must be powered externally while you heat the water to boiling point. For a small plant this may be doable in 10-15 minutes depending on boiler efficiency but for a large plant this is an hours long process.

As for Gas fuel I do not believe that they currently have the technology for gas fitting and condensed gasses required for a LPG type fuel. Also these have poor energy density compared to liquid fuels. A non electric diesel seems a much more plausable power plant.

Condensing and recycling feed water requires a raidiator system (not tooo hard, easily doable but heavy) but also requires a pump to recycle the water to the feed tank. Doable with the current safehold tech but it does add a lot of weight. Powering the multitude of pumps required is going to suck power and increase complexity badly, pumps were often the failure points in early petrol engines as well.

Finally I do not expect any steam engine to have good throttle response compared to a petrol engine but it should be good enough for aunt daisy flying.
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Dilandu   » Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:10 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Silverwall wrote:
WW1 deep bombing was to be honest a complete non event militarily. It didn't disrupt logistics and the civilian bombing just made the targets mad. Strategic bombing was a waste of resources because of the lack of technique, suitable weapons and accuracy. Even in WW2 strategic bombing was mainly a waste and the effort to disrupt deep logistics took huge effort which was most effective when attacking precious rail stock.


Generally you are wrong.

The impact of WW1 bombing was not direct, but actually pretty harmful. The most important effect was the need to enforce blackout, move peoples to shelters during air raids - which affected the thransportation of cargo&hampered the factories and plants cycles. Recall all the evactuations, and the scale of the problem would be clear.

And also, the large number of soldiers, planes, guns, searchlights were relegated to rear air defense duty, instead of fighting on the frontlines.

Strategic bombing was a waste of resources because of the lack of technique, suitable weapons and accuracy.


Again, it's not true. Yes, the sights and planes were primitive during WW1 - but the altitude and speed were also quite low. And talking about5 airships, their main problem was navigation. if they were able to found target, they generally were able to hit it accurate enough. Simply because they are much more stable in air than planes.

The best way to impliment accurate attacks prior to electronic bombsights was with dive bombing (stukas etcetera) and while capable of going deeper than artillery they are still best applied to tactical targets.


The best way to implement the accurate attacks were to use airships. Wich could just hover over the target, bringing the relative movement to near zero, and drop bomb with high percision.

And let's not forget, that we are talking about Safehold. Where the opponent have no searchlights, no anti-air guns and no fighter planes.

In Safehold condition, the airship could just flew toward the target in a daylight, hover about 1000 meters above and drop bombs from "full-stop". And nothing that Church have could really prevent such thing.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top

Return to Safehold