Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests

[SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?
Post by JRM   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:19 am

JRM
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:47 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Krenn wrote:With any sort of steam-powered variant of a famous bomber or cargo plane, there's no reason why the steam engines would need to be the same size of, or in the same place as, the original historical engines.

Doing the math here....

The current generation Praigyr produced about 0.13 Old Terran horsepower per pound, whereas Hindenburg’s diesels had produced 0.3 horsepower per pound.


Looking up a wide range of large, WW1-WWII aircraft...

and there's bad news. About half the aircraft I can think of COULD have replaced their engines with a heavier, steam-powered equivalent... if they had been willing to dedicate their ENTIRE cargo bay, and payload weight, to carrying replacement steam engines.

The DO X flying boat is one of the better examples...

DO X1a
Empty weight 28 metric tons
payload+ fuel 28 metric tons
top speed 131 mph
Engines 12
total power: 7320 hp
Frame: Aluminum

7320 hp, at .13 HP per pound, works out as ...

21 metric tons worth of steam engines and boilers.

We can save 4 metric tons by taking out the 12 ORIGINAL engines, which we won't be using...

But that still gives us this:

DO X1a (steam version)
Empty weight 45 metric tons
payload+ fuel 11 metric tons
top speed 131 mph
Engines (1 boiler, 12 driven engines)
total power: 7320 hp
Frame: Aluminum

11 tons for an aircraft that size is pretty much just enough for fuel and crew. and 10 tons of fuel is actually a little low, for what an aircraft of that size would normally want to carry. And we would still need to replace the aluminum frame with a steel one.

In order for this to work, you would basically wind up replacing the entire cargo bay of a DX1a with a single giant boiler/ flame-box /moisture recuperator, and then running steam pipes to the 6 engine naccelles, which contained two engines each. Those engines would actually run on the external supply of steam from the cargo bay, and send used steam back via a return pipe, to be recycled.

Most other aircraft I could find would actually be in WORSE shape... they'd barely have any weight left over for fuel at ALL, or else would exceed their maximum takeoff weight entirely.

A wellington would be about 3 tons overweight with a replacement steam engine and no fuel. a Mosquito would be about 8 tons over, likewise. A C-47 skytrain would be about 1 ton over, same.

Some of the WWII-era, planes which were custom-built to set the flight distance record could probably make the conversion... if you replaced about half of their enormous fuel resorvior in for a steam engine, instead. and didn't carry any cargo, other than the flight crew.

of course, that would cut the range in half, too. and the only purpose the aircraft could serve would be either single-person VIP transport, recon, or MAYBE carrying a few light machineguns as armanents.

The Gasuden Koken or the Bleriot 110 would be good candidates.


Hi,

The National Air and Space Museum has full size reproduction Besler Steam Engine and lists the following physical description:

"Type: Reciprocating, two-cylinder compound double acting, V-type, steam engine, reproduction
Power rating: 112 kW (150 hp) at 1,625 rpm, 1,200 psi boiler pressure
Displacement: 1.41 L (86.1 cu in)
Bore and Stroke: 76.2 mm (3 in.) x 76.2 mm (3 in.) high-pressure cylinder, 133 mm (5.25 in.) x 76.2 mm (3 in.) low pressure cylinder
Weight: 82 kg (180 lb) engine, 136 kg (300 lb) boilers and condensers"

That works out to 150hp / 480lb or .3125 hp/lb.

7320 hp would require 23,434 lb for 12 engines, boilers, and condensers. Each complete power plant would have to be 4 times more powerful than the Besler steam engine.

I would think that Owl needs to work on the efficency of the Praigyrs.
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?
Post by PeterZ   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:29 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Considering how frequently they are upgraded, OWL and Delthak Steam Works are improving them.
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?
Post by JRM   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:49 am

JRM
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:47 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

JRM wrote:Hi,

The National Air and Space Museum has full size reproduction Besler Steam Engine and lists the following physical description:

"Type: Reciprocating, two-cylinder compound double acting, V-type, steam engine, reproduction
Power rating: 112 kW (150 hp) at 1,625 rpm, 1,200 psi boiler pressure
Displacement: 1.41 L (86.1 cu in)
Bore and Stroke: 76.2 mm (3 in.) x 76.2 mm (3 in.) high-pressure cylinder, 133 mm (5.25 in.) x 76.2 mm (3 in.) low pressure cylinder
Weight: 82 kg (180 lb) engine, 136 kg (300 lb) boilers and condensers"

That works out to 150hp / 480lb or .3125 hp/lb.

7320 hp would require 23,434 lb for 12 engines, boilers, and condensers. Each complete power plant would have to be 4 times more powerful than the Besler steam engine.

I would think that Owl needs to work on the efficency of the Praigyrs.


While the upgraded Praigyrs would be adequate for smaller aircraft. I think that development should be on turboprops.

Charis went to steam turbines to power compressors, and then used airlines to distribute power to manufacturing tools that use rotating shafts. Since they are using turbines to generate power, and air driven turbines to utilize power. It would seem natural to develop gas turbines to power aircraft. This would require a transmission, but then so would diesel engines.

In our timeline internal combustion engines were used in early aircraft primarily because interenal combustion engines had so much development work done for cars.
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?
Post by PeterZ   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:12 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Does the recapture of steam work for turbines? Praigyrs vent steam into the cylinders and vent out for recapture in the boiler tubes. Not sure turbines would be as efficient in the recapture. If that's true, the system will need more water than Praigyrs. That adds weight to the system. That also introduces another consumable to limit range. The link states that is 13 gallons per kilowatt-hour by 2017. Not sure if the usage increases per kilo-watt hour in smaller turbines. One suspects it will. This already assumes assumes the use of a condenser.

Experiments with turbines and condensers for locomotives haven't worked well.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/thermal-power-plants-use-a-lot-of-water-but-thats-slowly-changing/

This link calculates about 1pound of coal to fuel 1kWh from a turbine.
So 13 gallons of water per pound of coal doesn't sound very efficient. Kerosine would be more efficient, but does nothing to improve water usage. This assumes turbines and condensers can be made to work for mobile systems.

http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s3/05account.shtml
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?
Post by Krenn   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:45 am

Krenn
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:56 pm

PeterZ wrote:Does the recapture of steam work for turbines? Praigyrs vent steam into the cylinders and vent out for recapture in the boiler tubes. Not sure turbines would be as efficient in the recapture. If that's true, the system will need more water than Praigyrs. That adds weight to the system. That also introduces another consumable to limit range. The link states that is 13 gallons per kilowatt-hour by 2017. Not sure if the usage increases per kilo-watt hour in smaller turbines. One suspects it will. This already assumes assumes the use of a condenser.

Experiments with turbines and condensers for locomotives haven't worked well.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/thermal-power-plants-use-a-lot-of-water-but-thats-slowly-changing/

This link calculates about 1pound of coal to fuel 1kWh from a turbine.
So 13 gallons of water per pound of coal doesn't sound very efficient. Kerosine would be more efficient, but does nothing to improve water usage. This assumes turbines and condensers can be made to work for mobile systems.

http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s3/05account.shtml


I think he meant air-turbine turboprops, like we have in real life. not steam-turbine. I mentioned the possibility of jet engines regulated or jump-started by a steam APU upthread, somewhere.
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?
Post by JRM   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:18 am

JRM
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:47 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Krenn wrote:
PeterZ wrote:Does the recapture of steam work for turbines? Praigyrs vent steam into the cylinders and vent out for recapture in the boiler tubes. Not sure turbines would be as efficient in the recapture. If that's true, the system will need more water than Praigyrs. That adds weight to the system. That also introduces another consumable to limit range. The link states that is 13 gallons per kilowatt-hour by 2017. Not sure if the usage increases per kilo-watt hour in smaller turbines. One suspects it will. This already assumes assumes the use of a condenser.

Experiments with turbines and condensers for locomotives haven't worked well.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/thermal-power-plants-use-a-lot-of-water-but-thats-slowly-changing/

This link calculates about 1pound of coal to fuel 1kWh from a turbine.
So 13 gallons of water per pound of coal doesn't sound very efficient. Kerosine would be more efficient, but does nothing to improve water usage. This assumes turbines and condensers can be made to work for mobile systems.

http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s3/05account.shtml


I think he meant air-turbine turboprops, like we have in real life. not steam-turbine. I mentioned the possibility of jet engines regulated or jump-started by a steam APU upthread, somewhere.


Hi,

I guess that I was skipping links in my post. Besler bought the production facilities and the patents from the Doble Brothers. They built the steam powered airplane that they flew in 1933. The also experimented with powering a two car rail train that ran commercially from 1936 to 1943. They found beyond 1000 hp that it was better to go with steam turbines rather than pistons.

I then changed topic. Charis has a lot of experience with turbines. They use steam turbines to produce compressed air, and they use pneumatic tools where we would use electric tools. We are talking about turbines to create energy, and turbines to use energy.

What we haven't seen is a gas turbine. Since there is no history of using diesel or gasoline internal combustion engines, it might be just as easy to develop a gas turboprop as it is to develop powerful IC engines.

You might not start with a C130, but the technology has plenty of room to grow.
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?
Post by Krenn   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:20 am

Krenn
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:56 pm

JRM wrote:[
Hi,

I guess that I was skipping links in my post. Besler bought the production facilities and the patents from the Doble Brothers. They built the steam powered airplane that they flew in 1933. The also experimented with powering a two car rail train that ran commercially from 1936 to 1943. They found beyond 1000 hp that it was better to go with steam turbines rather than pistons.

I then changed topic. Charis has a lot of experience with turbines. They use steam turbines to produce compressed air, and they use pneumatic tools where we would use electric tools. We are talking about turbines to create energy, and turbines to use energy.

What we haven't seen is a gas turbine. Since there is no history of using diesel or gasoline internal combustion engines, it might be just as easy to develop a gas turboprop as it is to develop powerful IC engines.

You might not start with a C130, but the technology has plenty of room to grow.


As I pointed out earlier, there are lots of ways to combine those technologies.

The easiest solution, which Charis could probably assemble in just a few months notice, would be a Motorjet.

A steam engine drives a turbine air compressor, just like they already have. The Turbine Air Compressor feeds into a burn chamber, a lot like the various steel furnaces they already have. Then burn chamber vents out the back, through a venturi nozzle, just like their signal rockets already have.

There's no "recovery stage" for the compressed air: it all gets vented out the back as thrust, and you use a secondary steam engine for the sole purpose of driving the compressor instead.

Historically, Motorjets were never very popular.... it made more sense to either just use an internal combustion engine to drive a normal propeller, or to build a normal jet engine, with a recovery stage in the back, which drove the compression stage in the front.

But a Motorjet paired to a steam engine driver WOULD be a logical interim step for Charis to use, until they got around to developing a full-scale jet engine. and even a proper jet engine would probably need a steam-powered APU to get started, since a battery-powered APU would be right out...
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft
Post by PeterZ   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:24 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

JRM wrote:[
Hi,

I guess that I was skipping links in my post. Besler bought the production facilities and the patents from the Doble Brothers. They built the steam powered airplane that they flew in 1933. The also experimented with powering a two car rail train that ran commercially from 1936 to 1943. They found beyond 1000 hp that it was better to go with steam turbines rather than pistons.

I then changed topic. Charis has a lot of experience with turbines. They use steam turbines to produce compressed air, and they use pneumatic tools where we would use electric tools. We are talking about turbines to create energy, and turbines to use energy.

What we haven't seen is a gas turbine. Since there is no history of using diesel or gasoline internal combustion engines, it might be just as easy to develop a gas turboprop as it is to develop powerful IC engines.

You might not start with a C130, but the technology has plenty of room to grow.
Krenn wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, there are lots of ways to combine those technologies.

The easiest solution, which Charis could probably assemble in just a few months notice, would be a Motorjet.

A steam engine drives a turbine air compressor, just like they already have. The Turbine Air Compressor feeds into a burn chamber, a lot like the various steel furnaces they already have. Then burn chamber vents out the back, through a venturi nozzle, just like their signal rockets already have.

There's no "recovery stage" for the compressed air: it all gets vented out the back as thrust, and you use a secondary steam engine for the sole purpose of driving the compressor instead.

Historically, Motorjets were never very popular.... it made more sense to either just use an internal combustion engine to drive a normal propeller, or to build a normal jet engine, with a recovery stage in the back, which drove the compression stage in the front.

But a Motorjet paired to a steam engine driver WOULD be a logical interim step for Charis to use, until they got around to developing a full-scale jet engine. and even a proper jet engine would probably need a steam-powered APU to get started, since a battery-powered APU would be right out...

We still have the problem of consuming water to drive the turbines for the air compressors. Turbines don't pair well with condensers below a certain size threshold. Since gas turbines don't need electricity to maintain combustion, using them simply requires an incendiary charge to start. Why marry either a turbo-prop or a straight jet to a steam compressor? That is assuming the IC manages the alloys necessary to bear the stresses of a gas turbine.

This discussion is interesting. By allowing steam turbines and steam driven pistons, the CoGA have bypassed the proscriptions for the mechanisms of both jets and reciprocating internal combustion engines. Since kerosine is being burned for light and heat already, it has been approved as well. Applying both to an IC engine or a gas turbine is simply reapplying existing tech. These innovations are not introducing new concepts.
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft
Post by Krenn   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:33 am

Krenn
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:56 pm

PeterZ wrote:
Krenn wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, there are lots of ways to combine those technologies.

The easiest solution, which Charis could probably assemble in just a few months notice, would be a Motorjet.

A steam engine drives a turbine air compressor, just like they already have. The Turbine Air Compressor feeds into a burn chamber, a lot like the various steel furnaces they already have. Then burn chamber vents out the back, through a venturi nozzle, just like their signal rockets already have.

There's no "recovery stage" for the compressed air: it all gets vented out the back as thrust, and you use a secondary steam engine for the sole purpose of driving the compressor instead.

Historically, Motorjets were never very popular.... it made more sense to either just use an internal combustion engine to drive a normal propeller, or to build a normal jet engine, with a recovery stage in the back, which drove the compression stage in the front.

But a Motorjet paired to a steam engine driver WOULD be a logical interim step for Charis to use, until they got around to developing a full-scale jet engine. and even a proper jet engine would probably need a steam-powered APU to get started, since a battery-powered APU would be right out...

We still have the problem of consuming water to drive the turbines for the air compressors. Turbines don't pair well with condensers below a certain size threshold. Since gas turbines don't need electricity to maintain combustion, using them simply requires an incendiary charge to start. Why marry either a turbo-prop or a straight jet to a steam compressor? That is assuming the IC manages the alloys necessary to bear the stresses of a gas turbine.

This discussion is interesting. By allowing steam turbines and steam driven pistons, the CoGA have bypassed the proscriptions for the mechanisms of both jets and reciprocating internal combustion engines. Since kerosine is being burned for light and heat already, it has been approved as well. Applying both to an IC engine or a gas turbine is simply reapplying existing tech. These innovations are not introducing new concepts.


The steam engine in this scenario is a praigyr, reciprocating, steam engine with a moisture recuperate. water is recycled as much as possible.

The reciprocating engine is then GEARED, and used to DRIVE the air-base compressor turbine. So you have a reciprocating steam engine running at about 300 RPM, and an air turbine which is geared to that, and running at about 10,000 RPM.

Steam engine runs of a normal boiler, and the air turbine runs on air and kerosene. No water needs to be vented.

The interesting part is trying to operate this design at high altitudes.... then you might need to bleed off some compressed air from the air turbine, in order to keep the boiler running at optimum temperatures...

or I suppose you could use the air turbine's combustion chamber AS a giant secondary heat source FOR the boiler... wrap lots of water pipe coils AROUND the air-turbine combustion chamber.... hmmmm....
Top
Re: [SPOILER] Safehold aircraft?
Post by PeterZ   » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:06 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

KISS the darned thing, Krenn! Too complicated means too expensive to build and maintain. Better to design a gas turbine that can reliably work without electricity, than to design some sort of steam powered turbocharger for a gas turbine.
Top

Return to Safehold