Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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   » Tue Aug 23, 2016 4:20 am

Dilandu
Admiral

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

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.


They weren't ideal, but they worked, and up to 1916, generally outperformed cotemporary zeppelins. And if you haven't got any aluminium, what choice you actually have? Besides, it's quite possible that Safehold have better plywood,like they have better silk)
------------------------------

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 Silverwall   » Tue Aug 23, 2016 5:45 am

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

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

Impressive, though as predicted moisture was a massive issue, I didn't know that the german army ran it's own airship programme and with the Navy refusing the wooden ships for the moisture reason that would explain why I have not heard of them. The Geodesic construction is most logical and spreads the loads much better than the ring and runner designs on the standard zeppelin.

I wish the wikipedia entry was more specific about where the cut off point between wood and metal framing is thought looking at the listed ship lengths it is probably somewhere in the 600' range which is about twice what my previous readings on wood structures suggeted was possible.

What does come through clearly though is how susceptable to the environment airships were with most of the ships written off in accidents.

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.

This leaves us with steam reforming and the earlier steam iron process wich is probably more doable with safehold tech http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 5399004589 though how they would discover this given the non-existiant state of chemical theory is going to be interesting. I suspect the projected 20+ year gap in the books will be partially used to back fill a lot of scientific and industrial knowledge that has been bypassed in the main narrative.
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:24 am

Dilandu
Admiral

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

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.
------------------------------

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   » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:52 am

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5595
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

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.


Good questions. Do you have the answers? I admit that I don't. I am merely saying that can be done and that while there are some challenges, the doing of it is probably within Safehold's grasp.

As for practicality, once an idea has been roughed out, it tends to get refined. Who knows what the final results would be? I can see great value in ariel recon for a general lacking access to the snarcs.

In conclusion, there are lots of things that look impractical before the doing that turn out later to have high utility. I'm not suggesting that Charis devote huge amounts of effort and resourses to this in the middle of a war like this has become, however. It's more something for the interim after the war is over.

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   » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:58 am

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

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

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.


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.

Also none of the technology or principles look to be completely beyond the potential of safehold chemistry. We know from RFC's comments that they have suprisingly good 'Bathtub chemistry" and this is a process that scales well from bathtub to industrial unlike a lot of chemical engineering requiring exotic catalysts and feedstock.
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:10 am

Dilandu
Admiral

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

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.
------------------------------

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 Silverwall   » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:27 am

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

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

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.


The ferrosilicate method certainly makes the most sense for field work, barrage balloons and observation balloons and the like with the Lane reactors not exactly being mobile but capable of much higher production once up and running.

Mainly what we have proved though is that generating the hydrogen lift gas for a blimp/zeppelin is well withing the no electricity potential of Safehold
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Weird Harold   » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:31 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

n7axw wrote:...ariel recon...


Mermaid spies? I don't think they'd be much use to a General. An Admiral, now...

I think you meant aerial.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by C. O. Thompson   » Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:04 am

C. O. Thompson
Captain of the List

Posts: 674
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 1:32 pm
Location: Thompson, CT USA

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"
Just my 2 ₡ worth
Top
Re: Aircraft question
Post by Keith_w   » Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:39 pm

Keith_w
Commodore

Posts: 950
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:10 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

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"



I see that "the worlds biggest aircraft" the "The Flying Bum" had a minor accident today - it ran into a telegraph pole.

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."


And you guys are suggesting blimps for Safehold?
--
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
Top

Return to Safehold