Apparently, not sufficiently reliable for high power combat, but more than adequate for other aeronautic uses.
Regarding tanks, compressed air started diesels were a mainstay since at least T56.
Neither of the above used electricity for operation; merely to warm up their glow plugs, almost as easily achieved by other means.
I do not mention modern bi-turbo automotive diesels that reliably pull north of 200 HP out of 2 liter displacement, as they rely heavily on computer control, albeit mostly for emissions.
If we did not have access to electricity and turbojets, I wonder how far would IC diesel in air go.
WeberFan wrote:PeterZ wrote:Thanks, Weber Fan.. It seems jets are less likely to transgress the Proscriptions than gasoline IC engines. That is consistent with current development of steam turbines and reliance on pneumatics. Heck, the Royal College has a specialization in pressures. All told, jets appear to be the preferred engine for heavier than air flight. Diesel and steam will likely be the preferred IC engine for almost every other use.
I wonder what this might mean for aircraft carriers. Will we see helicopters? Will we see steam tanks or diesel? Will we see various types of propulsion in naval ships? I can't wait to read about all of this.
I wouldn't necessarily jets are the immediate future, PeterZ. IMHO, diesel-powered props would be a good - a very good - intermediate step. Props work very well at relatively low RPMs while jets require (literally) thousands of RPM to work well.
My background included flying single and multi-engine turbojets. Normal idle was on the order of 6000 RPM and 100% power was a bit over 12,000. Interesting things happen from a metallurgical thing when you heat metals up to combustion temperatures and rotate them at those speeds. Blade creep being one of them.
OTOH, a diesel driving a prop through an appropriate set of gearing is just so much more simple - and reliable. For the prop, I'd go with (probably) a prop with 4, controllable pitch paddle blades. I think a diesel would drive that prop just fine.
If I were going to implement heavier-than-air aircraft, I'd go (initially) with a straight-wing/high-wing design with a relatively thick/high aspect ratio wing (lots of lift and also gives you lots of space for fuel in the wings). Perhaps not the most maneuverable thing in the world, but quite adequate. My initial design would have manual (cable and linkage) control systems which are quite workable at relatively low speeds when you trim them up. Probably a single engine at first (a bit underpowered, but workable). I'd use the single-engine only for overland flights or those with short periods overwater. When the engine technology evolves a bit, you could then go to a multi-engine design for longer, overwater flights. One thing I would NOT do - even at the outset - is to design a tail-dragger. I'd go with a tricycle landing gear from the outset with a manual crank to get the gear up (to reduce weight and, with the gear up to reduce drag). Yep... I can picture the 220 knot (single engine) up to perhaps 300 knot (twin engine) aircraft in my head as I write this...