1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
aerosteamer
Posted by: Alan Wilson (IP Logged)
Date: January 11, 2005 10:13PM
<HTML>Hi,
I chanced on this web in my research into steam driven vehicles.
My interest in in advanced ultralight aircraft. In Canada this equates to max. 900lbs. ( called sport class in USA I think)
We are constantly harrazzed by residents near airfields about the noise and every effort is made on their part to shut us down. I thought about how quiet the Stanley steamer was reputed to be and wondered if the use of new metals like tungsten-titanium etc. could reduce the weight of a steam engine to produce say 1 hp/10lbs. Perhaps a steam driven turbo-prop would avoid the weight created by reciprocating pistons.
Is a steam engine way outside the realm of possibilty for aircraft.??
Alan Wilson</HTML>
I chanced on this web in my research into steam driven vehicles.
My interest in in advanced ultralight aircraft. In Canada this equates to max. 900lbs. ( called sport class in USA I think)
We are constantly harrazzed by residents near airfields about the noise and every effort is made on their part to shut us down. I thought about how quiet the Stanley steamer was reputed to be and wondered if the use of new metals like tungsten-titanium etc. could reduce the weight of a steam engine to produce say 1 hp/10lbs. Perhaps a steam driven turbo-prop would avoid the weight created by reciprocating pistons.
Is a steam engine way outside the realm of possibilty for aircraft.??
Alan Wilson</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: January 11, 2005 10:40PM
<HTML>I don’t know if you can get it that light but William Besler built a steam powered plane.
Hear are some sites, there probably more.
[www.flyingkettle.com]
[www.firedragon.com];
Hear are some sites, there probably more.
[www.flyingkettle.com]
[www.firedragon.com];
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 11, 2005 11:07PM
<HTML>Alan,
Current light weight car steam systems are down to under 4 lb/hp. The total weight of engine (system) with water and fuel for a given duration would be critical for aircraft use. Reliability and certification would also be a new issue.
How much power do you need and what duration is required?
I shared an office once with an engineer who built a single seat aircraft that needed about 40hp. We looked at a wood fired steam system for it using the VW steam conversion. Overall weight was a problem for us at the time so we did not try and build it. The steam engine existed for car use.
Graeme</HTML>
Current light weight car steam systems are down to under 4 lb/hp. The total weight of engine (system) with water and fuel for a given duration would be critical for aircraft use. Reliability and certification would also be a new issue.
How much power do you need and what duration is required?
I shared an office once with an engineer who built a single seat aircraft that needed about 40hp. We looked at a wood fired steam system for it using the VW steam conversion. Overall weight was a problem for us at the time so we did not try and build it. The steam engine existed for car use.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 01:07AM
<HTML>Please look at the plane that Hiram Maxim built and crasheed in 1892 or 3,,It is worth the look,,Scientific American front page as I recall.REALLY impressive specs..Ben</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 01:36AM
<HTML>If you want HP at light weight,,look at that Maxim engine,,photo in a Clymers book tho not identified its unmistakable,,one engine is ON HMS Titanic and was being returned to Smithsonian,,,the other one is in South Kensington, I spotted it clear across the floor,,and was not aware the engine even existed,,,what a suprise,, 5th floor maybee,,,it was a hike up those stairs,,First one there ,,let me know as I doubt I will get back now,,,,Cheers Ben / Pay close att'n to crankshaft construction,,doubt you guys have ever seen annything that clever,and I dont recall any note of annyone looking at it since my last post on this very light weight piston valve monster,,? This thing had more lift than lighter gas jobs,,Let us know when you get your homework done :== }</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 05:14AM
<HTML>Ben,
I could not find any clear pictures of the Maxim engine crankshaft. I saw mention that Parsons mentioned the power to weight ratio was the best for any heat engine of its day. Some time later Maxim said he regretted using such a large flying machine with the steam engine and said he should have used a smaller plane with a lighter petrol engine. The year of the trial in which the Maxim flying machine lifted clear of its guide tracks by achieving flight was 1984. He was obviously a very capable engineer and did important pioneering work.
Graeme</HTML>
I could not find any clear pictures of the Maxim engine crankshaft. I saw mention that Parsons mentioned the power to weight ratio was the best for any heat engine of its day. Some time later Maxim said he regretted using such a large flying machine with the steam engine and said he should have used a smaller plane with a lighter petrol engine. The year of the trial in which the Maxim flying machine lifted clear of its guide tracks by achieving flight was 1984. He was obviously a very capable engineer and did important pioneering work.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: ArnoldWalker (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 06:28AM
<HTML>Your turbo prop would work....
Look this past spring's Popular Mechanic with the Grumman Nuke plane
in it.
Start off on JetA ,then switch to a Heat off the reactor. Standard jet engine
except for a massive heat exchanger in the combustor section.</HTML>
Look this past spring's Popular Mechanic with the Grumman Nuke plane
in it.
Start off on JetA ,then switch to a Heat off the reactor. Standard jet engine
except for a massive heat exchanger in the combustor section.</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 10:18AM
<HTML>Hi Graeme,,Maxim s craft was more like a cargo plane,,,not only did it come clear of the rr track it ran on,,,it pulled up track AND ties I think,,,there were wheels under the track to hold it and measure the lift,,,My memory of this is 50+ years ago,,,The crank end is in plain view in Clymers book large diam,as in modern practice,, ,,,I think its the early steamcar book w/ red cover,,,I'd quote a page if I could find my copy..Maxim wrote a book w/ all the math and physics of flight around 1908--12 cant recall the title but Evelyn Clement had a copy around 1975,,I had it in my hands ,so I know it did exist,,,price125 usd at that time and gas was .35 /gal,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 10:30AM
<HTML>Just spotted a typo error in my post. The year of the Maxim steam plane lift off and accident was 1894. Am sure you would have all been there if it was 1984.
Other details of the steam plant suggest the power to weight ratio was about 6 lb/hp and water rate about 30 lb/hp/hr with boiler pressure of up to 320psi. The initial trials were run non-condensing as the early trials were only intended to demonstrate the ability to produce lift within a wheel guide track. Pity some of the later steam car manufacturers did not employ Maxim later as he had very advanced but simple designs.
Graeme</HTML>
Other details of the steam plant suggest the power to weight ratio was about 6 lb/hp and water rate about 30 lb/hp/hr with boiler pressure of up to 320psi. The initial trials were run non-condensing as the early trials were only intended to demonstrate the ability to produce lift within a wheel guide track. Pity some of the later steam car manufacturers did not employ Maxim later as he had very advanced but simple designs.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 11:33AM
<HTML>Alan,
Also llok at the early steam plane made and flown by Augustus Whitehead(do a web search). He successfully flew several times in one day on Long Island prior to the Wright brothers famous flight and he flew for longer distances.
George</HTML>
Also llok at the early steam plane made and flown by Augustus Whitehead(do a web search). He successfully flew several times in one day on Long Island prior to the Wright brothers famous flight and he flew for longer distances.
George</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ken (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 11:40AM
<HTML>Ummmmm......if noise is the only issue, wouldn't a much better muffler be a lot simpler solution?
Ken</HTML>
Ken</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 11:43AM
<HTML>Maxim was snatched up shortly after by Col Pope for his company,to experiment w/ cars and powerplants,,had a 3cyl tricycle running in Hartford Connecticut in 1896,,2000 taxis deliverd to New York city in '99 I think,,,date to be checked,,,shortly after they built a gas/electric auto that tragicly burned on its maiden voyage,,The Pope Hartford cars had a very good reputation, Pope owned the Columbia bicycle works ,and many other related companys, I think Maxims father invented the revolving barrell machine gun and the gun silencer...To me the English connection is not clear..Hey Dave need your help again,,and annyone else that knows of these obscure details,, The period from 1896--1902 is coverd in ''Horseless Carraige Days by H Maxim,,1936 Houton-Mifflin co Boston,,and recently in paperback. a good read to get the feel of the day,,,in the first tense ! ! ! ..,Cheers Ben P/s Pope gave the money to lay cornerstone of the Boston Harvard Club,,one more connection to Harvard and the early auto industry,,cb</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Dick Vennerbeck (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 01:13PM
<HTML>Ben,
Thanks. Found lots of "Horseless" at
[dogbert.abebooks.com]
from about $14 for paperback to $200 for first edition.
Dick</HTML>
Thanks. Found lots of "Horseless" at
[dogbert.abebooks.com]
from about $14 for paperback to $200 for first edition.
Dick</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 01:38PM
<HTML>This is a pretty good site.
[www.bondle.co.uk];
[www.bondle.co.uk];
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Bill Gatlin (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 02:45PM
<HTML>What amazes me is that the plane was such a large monster. These guys didn't believe in starting small at all.
Was that really a critical pressure boiler? Wonder how far and high it would have gone if they hadn't held it down.
Wow-------------Bill G.</HTML>
Was that really a critical pressure boiler? Wonder how far and high it would have gone if they hadn't held it down.
Wow-------------Bill G.</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Garry Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 04:23PM
<HTML>Ok, so I can’t find the book at the moment. I think the title is “Experimental Flash Steam.” I don’t remember the author. The book is aimed at model builders, and would not be a bad place to start for an ultra-light powerplant. Was it Rolly that mentioned this title earlier?
A small fleet of noncondensing ultra-lights, soaring through the cool early morning Wisconsin air during Oshkosh, would certainly make for an interesting sight.
Garry</HTML>
A small fleet of noncondensing ultra-lights, soaring through the cool early morning Wisconsin air during Oshkosh, would certainly make for an interesting sight.
Garry</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 05:11PM
<HTML>Garry Go to
[www.bookfinder.com]
Author is J H Benson & A. A. Rayman
Title is Experimental flash Steam
There are ten used copies listed, two for $15.00 up to over $68.00
Rolly</HTML>
[www.bookfinder.com]
Author is J H Benson & A. A. Rayman
Title is Experimental flash Steam
There are ten used copies listed, two for $15.00 up to over $68.00
Rolly</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 05:23PM
<HTML>Garry & Rolly,
One of the best little books I have ever read. The precision and workmanship on some of those small english model hydroplane engines and monotube boilers is magnificient. Sorta like the stuff at the model club Rolly belongs to.
George</HTML>
One of the best little books I have ever read. The precision and workmanship on some of those small english model hydroplane engines and monotube boilers is magnificient. Sorta like the stuff at the model club Rolly belongs to.
George</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Garry Hunsaker (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 05:50PM
<HTML>Thanks Rolly & George
What I should have said is, some where around here I have a copy of the book. You might also want to add [www.usedbooksearch.co.uk] to your book search list. They have come up with odd copies for me, when no one else did. They are where I found Stumpf’s Una-Flow book at a very reasonable price.
Garry</HTML>
What I should have said is, some where around here I have a copy of the book. You might also want to add [www.usedbooksearch.co.uk] to your book search list. They have come up with odd copies for me, when no one else did. They are where I found Stumpf’s Una-Flow book at a very reasonable price.
Garry</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Alan Wilson (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 06:49PM
<HTML>Hi Graeme,
Right now Bombardiers Rotax 80 and100hp four stroke Rotax 912 has a strangle hold on the advanced ultralight market at $17,000/$23000 each.
The following Specs are of a general nature but gives you some idea of what an equivalent steam engine would have to acheive.
Installed weight 134 lbs -- 1.657 lbs/HP for the Rotax 80HP
Duration is about 3 1/2 hrs. no reserve. I think a comprimise would be 2 i/2 hours for the aerosteamer. Most ultra light pilots are not interested in extended cross countries.
F.
Thanks also to Rolly for info on the Besler. I was stunned to find that back in '23 someone actually flew a steamer aircraft for two circuits.</HTML>
Right now Bombardiers Rotax 80 and100hp four stroke Rotax 912 has a strangle hold on the advanced ultralight market at $17,000/$23000 each.
The following Specs are of a general nature but gives you some idea of what an equivalent steam engine would have to acheive.
Installed weight 134 lbs -- 1.657 lbs/HP for the Rotax 80HP
Duration is about 3 1/2 hrs. no reserve. I think a comprimise would be 2 i/2 hours for the aerosteamer. Most ultra light pilots are not interested in extended cross countries.
F.
Thanks also to Rolly for info on the Besler. I was stunned to find that back in '23 someone actually flew a steamer aircraft for two circuits.</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 09:21PM
<HTML>Rolly,,,Thanks ever so much for finding that article on Maxim,,,It was certainly a landmark early machine,in the days when steam was king,,I wonder if Roper knew Maxim..Roper was envolved w/the Spencer revolving barrel gun,, and Pope gave S Roper a bicycle to experiment with. I think Pope lived in Milton at that time. There were 2 Popes,, Charles and Albert. Does anyone have a clue as to what rpm that 18 foot prop would work at,,,Glad I wasn't next to that when it came to chop up wood etc Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: January 12, 2005 09:32PM
<HTML>Colburn
You certainly have a great memory. Thanks for your help the other night with Croker.
Rolly</HTML>
You certainly have a great memory. Thanks for your help the other night with Croker.
Rolly</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 13, 2005 01:18AM
<HTML>Alan,
Thanks for the Rotax engine details.
What would be a typical power use profile for an aircraft fitted with either of these engines. Percent of full power would be needed for each phase of a flight, such as take off, climb, cruise, decent and landing.
In view of the high cost of aircraft engines a cheaper steam engine could afford to use some higher cost components to save weight and still remain below the cost of a Rotax. You would need to get pretty close to the Rotax weight to provide a benefit as a few extra pounds of fuel may be needed.
Do many have to use cheaper but heavier engines for budget reasons?
If someone had a near silent steam engine for this application, how big would the market be?
A high speed propellor is not quiet either so I would look at some good engine silencers first as Ken suggests.
Graeme</HTML>
Thanks for the Rotax engine details.
What would be a typical power use profile for an aircraft fitted with either of these engines. Percent of full power would be needed for each phase of a flight, such as take off, climb, cruise, decent and landing.
In view of the high cost of aircraft engines a cheaper steam engine could afford to use some higher cost components to save weight and still remain below the cost of a Rotax. You would need to get pretty close to the Rotax weight to provide a benefit as a few extra pounds of fuel may be needed.
Do many have to use cheaper but heavier engines for budget reasons?
If someone had a near silent steam engine for this application, how big would the market be?
A high speed propellor is not quiet either so I would look at some good engine silencers first as Ken suggests.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 13, 2005 03:48AM
<HTML>Bill,
The boiler was a three drum light weight water tube with downcomers a bit like Thornycroft and Yarrow designs. I haven't found any dimensions but bare weight without burner and water it was 904 lb and had about 800 square feet heating surface. It held 200 lb of water and the vaporising gasoline fuelled burner would have weighed about 100 lb. Pressure was up to 320 psi so it was not a critical pressure boiler.
Engines were compound expansion with 5.05" bore Hp, 8" bore LP and 12" stroke. Pistons valves had a stroke of 3". Cut off for hp was 75%, and for LP was 62.5%. Engine power is given as 363 hp @ 375 rpm at 320 psi - presume that is for both as reference is made to the plane having 2 x 180hp engines. Water rate at 100hp was about 25lb/hp/hr.
The propellors were 17'10" dia and 16 foot pitch.
The plane had 5 sets of wings but I understand only three sets were fitted for the trials when it lifted off the track and started to fly. Calculations indicated the machine could provide 10,000 lbs of vertical lift at over 40 mph air speed, so with a total weight of about 8,000 lb was certainly capable of flying. There is much speculation what would happen if it did get into the air as they had little idea of controlling it in flight - hence the very cautious preliminary trials with the plane secured in guide tracks. I understand the heavy railway type undercarriage weighed about 1.5 tons so with normal wheels it would have been much lighter and capable of more positive lift. I guess there must have been some scarey moments operating a machine this size without any idea what might happen if it become uncontrollable in the air - three crew, highly flammable fuel and the like. It was too much for Maxim and he ceased development of the machine after the accident before anyone got hurt.
In looking back at the achievement, the technology used and the time it was done, it was truly remarkable.
Graeme</HTML>
The boiler was a three drum light weight water tube with downcomers a bit like Thornycroft and Yarrow designs. I haven't found any dimensions but bare weight without burner and water it was 904 lb and had about 800 square feet heating surface. It held 200 lb of water and the vaporising gasoline fuelled burner would have weighed about 100 lb. Pressure was up to 320 psi so it was not a critical pressure boiler.
Engines were compound expansion with 5.05" bore Hp, 8" bore LP and 12" stroke. Pistons valves had a stroke of 3". Cut off for hp was 75%, and for LP was 62.5%. Engine power is given as 363 hp @ 375 rpm at 320 psi - presume that is for both as reference is made to the plane having 2 x 180hp engines. Water rate at 100hp was about 25lb/hp/hr.
The propellors were 17'10" dia and 16 foot pitch.
The plane had 5 sets of wings but I understand only three sets were fitted for the trials when it lifted off the track and started to fly. Calculations indicated the machine could provide 10,000 lbs of vertical lift at over 40 mph air speed, so with a total weight of about 8,000 lb was certainly capable of flying. There is much speculation what would happen if it did get into the air as they had little idea of controlling it in flight - hence the very cautious preliminary trials with the plane secured in guide tracks. I understand the heavy railway type undercarriage weighed about 1.5 tons so with normal wheels it would have been much lighter and capable of more positive lift. I guess there must have been some scarey moments operating a machine this size without any idea what might happen if it become uncontrollable in the air - three crew, highly flammable fuel and the like. It was too much for Maxim and he ceased development of the machine after the accident before anyone got hurt.
In looking back at the achievement, the technology used and the time it was done, it was truly remarkable.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 13, 2005 11:17AM
<HTML>Alan,
I have found some performance data for the Rotax engines and have compared fuel consumption with a likely steam replacement.
How much fuel does a typical ultralight aircraft carry and what is a normal design payload for people, fuel and goods?
I found some specs for two aircraft - one had space for 22 US gallons of fuel, a second had space for 26 gallons.
In playing with some numbers and allowing for a steam engine that may have a fuel consumption up to 25% more than a Rotax engine you could have either a 30 lb fuel weight penalty with a steam engine of same weight as a Rotax or a 20% reduction in range if extra fuel could not be carried (using a basic capacity of 20 US gallons).
I started weighing some existing engine components but the few pieces picked up were two heavy to think about using. This problem would need a new design to achieve the weight target.
Graeme</HTML>
I have found some performance data for the Rotax engines and have compared fuel consumption with a likely steam replacement.
How much fuel does a typical ultralight aircraft carry and what is a normal design payload for people, fuel and goods?
I found some specs for two aircraft - one had space for 22 US gallons of fuel, a second had space for 26 gallons.
In playing with some numbers and allowing for a steam engine that may have a fuel consumption up to 25% more than a Rotax engine you could have either a 30 lb fuel weight penalty with a steam engine of same weight as a Rotax or a 20% reduction in range if extra fuel could not be carried (using a basic capacity of 20 US gallons).
I started weighing some existing engine components but the few pieces picked up were two heavy to think about using. This problem would need a new design to achieve the weight target.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 13, 2005 11:39AM
<HTML>Bill,
It is likely the Maxim plane would have only had enough power to remain in the Ground Effect range (same problem the Wright Brothers had later). The influence of ground effect was not discovered until the 1920s so no one would have realised what was happening.
If the plane was well balanced and the fore and aft planes could keep it stable, it should have flown in ground effect about 12 feet above ground level (about 0ne tenth of the wing span) until it ran out of fuel or water. A condenser had not been fitted as a long flight was not required for the controlled tests. I'm not sure if a rudder was fitted so they may not have been able to steer a straight course. If they had a clear level field it could have gone quite a way at about 45mph skimming over the grass at low altitude and clearing anything under about 12 feet high like a hovercraft. There is now adequate knowledge on how to fly such craft but it would have been trial and error in those days and Maxim didn't come back for a second try with his big machine. A great pity as he was really some 30 years ahead of his time and subsequent knowledge indicates he probably had the first large WIG craft before true aircraft flight was achieved.
Note the Wright brothers were not flying either.
Graeme</HTML>
It is likely the Maxim plane would have only had enough power to remain in the Ground Effect range (same problem the Wright Brothers had later). The influence of ground effect was not discovered until the 1920s so no one would have realised what was happening.
If the plane was well balanced and the fore and aft planes could keep it stable, it should have flown in ground effect about 12 feet above ground level (about 0ne tenth of the wing span) until it ran out of fuel or water. A condenser had not been fitted as a long flight was not required for the controlled tests. I'm not sure if a rudder was fitted so they may not have been able to steer a straight course. If they had a clear level field it could have gone quite a way at about 45mph skimming over the grass at low altitude and clearing anything under about 12 feet high like a hovercraft. There is now adequate knowledge on how to fly such craft but it would have been trial and error in those days and Maxim didn't come back for a second try with his big machine. A great pity as he was really some 30 years ahead of his time and subsequent knowledge indicates he probably had the first large WIG craft before true aircraft flight was achieved.
Note the Wright brothers were not flying either.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 13, 2005 11:45AM
<HTML>Hi Graeme,,Where did you find the info on the Maxim Plane,,,that was a treat,,Was there any mention of engine weight,,,Construction was unique,,and I think its weight /size ratio would be outstanding,,I wonder who the investors were,,All nearly forgotten glimse into the future from a 1890 perspective,,,I wonder if there is any evidence that he had worked on the control problem,,but was testing only 1 system at a time,, Gee, Racing steam cars all of a sudden seems rather tame,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 13, 2005 05:48PM
<HTML>Ben, Graeme,
I mention again the well documented accounts of Whitehead on Long Island prior to the Wright Brothers flight, he flew, according to documented witnesses, several hundred feet above the water and flew considerable distances with his steam plane. His, if memory serves correct, was of very light powerplant construction. Think I have the website on my old computer that has not been set up since I moved, some very interesting information on a great forgotten pioneer.
George</HTML>
I mention again the well documented accounts of Whitehead on Long Island prior to the Wright Brothers flight, he flew, according to documented witnesses, several hundred feet above the water and flew considerable distances with his steam plane. His, if memory serves correct, was of very light powerplant construction. Think I have the website on my old computer that has not been set up since I moved, some very interesting information on a great forgotten pioneer.
George</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Rolly (IP Logged)
Date: January 13, 2005 06:20PM
<HTML>I don’t know George. I guess we can judge for our self.
Rolly
[www.flightjournal.com]
[www.thehistorynet.com];
Rolly
[www.flightjournal.com]
[www.thehistorynet.com];
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 13, 2005 07:33PM
<HTML>Rolly,
Your second link is most interesting, thanks for finding it. I will dig back and find the earlier article published earlier in the 1900's. Great stuff, great people, and unfortunately great controversy. Somewhere in my dim brain is a memory of the Wright's having great influence at the Smithsonian. Much like Edison gets the credit for AC---at the Edison display is one of Tesla's rotating field motors and Tesla gets no mention for inventor of the rotating field AC motor. Looks like history has always been capable of being modified for whatever purposes.
Now if Jim Crank could ever find that elusive Delling 3 cylinder DA front engined car he searched for years back in LA, another forgotten great in steam---Eric Delling.
George</HTML>
Your second link is most interesting, thanks for finding it. I will dig back and find the earlier article published earlier in the 1900's. Great stuff, great people, and unfortunately great controversy. Somewhere in my dim brain is a memory of the Wright's having great influence at the Smithsonian. Much like Edison gets the credit for AC---at the Edison display is one of Tesla's rotating field motors and Tesla gets no mention for inventor of the rotating field AC motor. Looks like history has always been capable of being modified for whatever purposes.
Now if Jim Crank could ever find that elusive Delling 3 cylinder DA front engined car he searched for years back in LA, another forgotten great in steam---Eric Delling.
George</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ken (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 03:08AM
<HTML>Hi George:
I don't recall the Wright's having great influence with the Smithsonian. Langley was the head of the Smithsonian and for many years that institution claimed he, and not the Wrights, had priority claiming the first flight. Langleys 'flights' were catapulted off a houseboat anchored in the Potomac and were heavily government subsidized...and crashed pitifully. This is one reason there was little newspaper coverage when the Wrights reported their flight, everyone was convinced two bicycle mechanics could pull off the feat after a noted scientist with such lavish government backing failed. In fact, the Wright Flyer was housed in Paris until after WW2 because of the controversy. Interesting note, Langleys aerodynamics might not have been great, but his chauffer built the engine which had a very high power/weight ratio for the time...much better than what the Wrights had.
Ken</HTML>
I don't recall the Wright's having great influence with the Smithsonian. Langley was the head of the Smithsonian and for many years that institution claimed he, and not the Wrights, had priority claiming the first flight. Langleys 'flights' were catapulted off a houseboat anchored in the Potomac and were heavily government subsidized...and crashed pitifully. This is one reason there was little newspaper coverage when the Wrights reported their flight, everyone was convinced two bicycle mechanics could pull off the feat after a noted scientist with such lavish government backing failed. In fact, the Wright Flyer was housed in Paris until after WW2 because of the controversy. Interesting note, Langleys aerodynamics might not have been great, but his chauffer built the engine which had a very high power/weight ratio for the time...much better than what the Wrights had.
Ken</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 10:23AM
<HTML>Glad someone has noticed this verry interesting radial engine,,which the sign claims 52 HP I think,I was in DC in 1968 ,,,and weighs less than a 1968 Triumph motorcycle engine of 52 hp,,,The valves are opened by PULL wires not rods,,I think it may be a make and break ign??? does anyone have more on this,,,and WHO was the chauffeur,,?? Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: ArnoldWalker (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 02:37PM
<HTML>Wright didn't have much of a airplane customer support system either during the early days.
The Army decided to try out these new flying machines and ordered one from Wright.
A Army Engineer was assigned to a base in San Antonio,Texas ,to test out the idea of flying as a usable military idea.....
When he arrived he found a semi-kit plane in crates with shop prints(what wasn't kit was built outright).
And no operator manual...after building the thing ,teaching himself how to
fly with the aid of 12 enlisted men assigned to him(none of whom had seen a ballon much less an airplane).He did the test and appraised the value of fixed wing aircraft in military usage.</HTML>
The Army decided to try out these new flying machines and ordered one from Wright.
A Army Engineer was assigned to a base in San Antonio,Texas ,to test out the idea of flying as a usable military idea.....
When he arrived he found a semi-kit plane in crates with shop prints(what wasn't kit was built outright).
And no operator manual...after building the thing ,teaching himself how to
fly with the aid of 12 enlisted men assigned to him(none of whom had seen a ballon much less an airplane).He did the test and appraised the value of fixed wing aircraft in military usage.</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: ArnoldWalker (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 03:33PM
<HTML>I think if a person was to actually build an ultralight steam aircraft....
a design along the lines of a Pitcairn like a modern Pitbull (Pitcairn replica)
might be a good starting point until some of the critical details on the powerplant were worked out...........Aircraft mechanic might be a little biased,but autorotation seems like a good thing to have,at least at first.
Though, Airhart did have more ground resonant (from hard landing) crashs than all the 20's & 30's era commerical autogyro pilots put together.Before she switched back to airplanes.......couldn't adjust to something with a different flying style from an airplane.
So,I have some reluctance ....to actually putting a non-rotor wing guy in the seat of that thing.....but power requirements would be on par with
a biplane .With crash survival better than the biplane.In the event of power outage.</HTML>
a design along the lines of a Pitcairn like a modern Pitbull (Pitcairn replica)
might be a good starting point until some of the critical details on the powerplant were worked out...........Aircraft mechanic might be a little biased,but autorotation seems like a good thing to have,at least at first.
Though, Airhart did have more ground resonant (from hard landing) crashs than all the 20's & 30's era commerical autogyro pilots put together.Before she switched back to airplanes.......couldn't adjust to something with a different flying style from an airplane.
So,I have some reluctance ....to actually putting a non-rotor wing guy in the seat of that thing.....but power requirements would be on par with
a biplane .With crash survival better than the biplane.In the event of power outage.</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: ArnoldWalker (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 03:52PM
<HTML>Because of past thread about a steam powered aircraft......the guy was from Colorado instead of Canada like this thread.
Found a steam turboprop could match or beat the steam piston engine on power to weight.........still not convinced that this steamflying can be done in a reliable fashion.
And still have problems with a boiler design that would work with it .
Though past peoples mentioned in this thread do indicate a general direction to follow.</HTML>
Found a steam turboprop could match or beat the steam piston engine on power to weight.........still not convinced that this steamflying can be done in a reliable fashion.
And still have problems with a boiler design that would work with it .
Though past peoples mentioned in this thread do indicate a general direction to follow.</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 04:36PM
<HTML>Ben,
If you are asking about the five cylinder radial engine in the Langley Aerodrome, that is well described in a Smithsonian booklet: "The Manley Engine." I have it and several good sectioned drawings of the engine.
Probably the very best gasoline engine of the era, and after the cooling and ignition problems were solved, very reliable and potent. Very light and very reliable and certainly more than powerful enough.
He developed it from the Balzer rotary tricycle engine.
Balzer, in New York, was contracted to make the engine for the Aerodrome; but dismally failed. Charles Manley, Langley's chief assistant, took on the task of totally redesigning the engine and brilliantly succeeded. Too bad the rest of that Aerodrome wasn't as good!
Manley flew the thing on both the attempts and came close to drowning on the final attempt, when it broke apart and he was trapped underwater in the resulting crash.
When Curtis later in 1914 rebuilt the Aerodrome and flew it, he had so seriously modified the plane that except for the basic layout, it wasn't the same thing at all. The Smithsonian was desperate to try to prove that Langley's plane could really fly before the Wrights. Lots of fudging there.
JC</HTML>
If you are asking about the five cylinder radial engine in the Langley Aerodrome, that is well described in a Smithsonian booklet: "The Manley Engine." I have it and several good sectioned drawings of the engine.
Probably the very best gasoline engine of the era, and after the cooling and ignition problems were solved, very reliable and potent. Very light and very reliable and certainly more than powerful enough.
He developed it from the Balzer rotary tricycle engine.
Balzer, in New York, was contracted to make the engine for the Aerodrome; but dismally failed. Charles Manley, Langley's chief assistant, took on the task of totally redesigning the engine and brilliantly succeeded. Too bad the rest of that Aerodrome wasn't as good!
Manley flew the thing on both the attempts and came close to drowning on the final attempt, when it broke apart and he was trapped underwater in the resulting crash.
When Curtis later in 1914 rebuilt the Aerodrome and flew it, he had so seriously modified the plane that except for the basic layout, it wasn't the same thing at all. The Smithsonian was desperate to try to prove that Langley's plane could really fly before the Wrights. Lots of fudging there.
JC</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 05:37PM
<HTML>Hi Jim,,,Somehow I was thinking Langley was in the late 1890s Do you know if in fact it was ,, [ or was designed as] a make an' break engine,,,The French spark plugs were a new/fangled item around that time and the surviving early stuff has so many times gottn updated an STILL called original grrrr,,Good to hear from you again Jim,,Still looking foreward to another dinner like MtWashington,,that was the best dinner EVER no one will forget it ,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 10:17PM
<HTML>Hi Ben,
According to the book, and an even better one on ancient aircraft engines, "Aircraft Engine Encyclopedia" by Glenn Angle, 1922, Otterbein Press, Dayton. Ohio.
The Manley engine was designed in 1901. Five cylinder radial, 5" bore X 5.5" stroke, 52.4 hp @ 950 rpm, slipper connecting rod bearings, master rod and linked rods, 151 lbs with all equipment. Suction inlet and cam operated exhaust.
The ignition was spark plug, in fact one with a side electrode, like a modern racing plug, spark coil and vibrator, with a distributor. Of "special design" the book says, I certainly would say so!! That is really something for anything like 1901. Nothing I have says where the spark plugs came from, although considering Manley's genius, I wouldn't be surprised if he made them too.
All in all the most advanced gas engine design I know of for anything like that time and well into 1912, for that matter, until the twin cam Peugeot racing engine was designed.
Am planning to go to Ormond Beach, IF the races are longer than a block and let the cars really get going, otherwise it is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. We certainly can spend a couple of days together, and I really would look forward to that with intense pleasure. That dinner was really something, wasn't it. I really enjoyed that.
JC</HTML>
According to the book, and an even better one on ancient aircraft engines, "Aircraft Engine Encyclopedia" by Glenn Angle, 1922, Otterbein Press, Dayton. Ohio.
The Manley engine was designed in 1901. Five cylinder radial, 5" bore X 5.5" stroke, 52.4 hp @ 950 rpm, slipper connecting rod bearings, master rod and linked rods, 151 lbs with all equipment. Suction inlet and cam operated exhaust.
The ignition was spark plug, in fact one with a side electrode, like a modern racing plug, spark coil and vibrator, with a distributor. Of "special design" the book says, I certainly would say so!! That is really something for anything like 1901. Nothing I have says where the spark plugs came from, although considering Manley's genius, I wouldn't be surprised if he made them too.
All in all the most advanced gas engine design I know of for anything like that time and well into 1912, for that matter, until the twin cam Peugeot racing engine was designed.
Am planning to go to Ormond Beach, IF the races are longer than a block and let the cars really get going, otherwise it is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. We certainly can spend a couple of days together, and I really would look forward to that with intense pleasure. That dinner was really something, wasn't it. I really enjoyed that.
JC</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 14, 2005 11:37PM
<HTML>Hi Jim,,Does the paper mention the wires that PULL the ex valves open,,absolutely brilliant weight saving idea for a low speed engine,,,I recall my suprise when I saw it,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 15, 2005 11:44AM
<HTML>Ben,
It wasn't the best dinner but was the most electrifying goosepimply table discussion EVER---boy was the energy flowing at that dinner!
Thanks to you and Jim, George</HTML>
It wasn't the best dinner but was the most electrifying goosepimply table discussion EVER---boy was the energy flowing at that dinner!
Thanks to you and Jim, George</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: John (IP Logged)
Date: January 15, 2005 12:13PM
<HTML>Back to the Aerosteamer discussion - there has been some discussion of the pressurized saturated water storage systems on the Yahoo Steam_tech pages and this may be suitable for the range of an ultralight.
You can then leave your boiler on the ground. I would imagine a sphephical high pressure container would be safe in most survivable ultralight bingles and why worry in the other type :=)
Regards
JohnH</HTML>
You can then leave your boiler on the ground. I would imagine a sphephical high pressure container would be safe in most survivable ultralight bingles and why worry in the other type :=)
Regards
JohnH</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 15, 2005 12:53PM
<HTML>Here we go again hi power for liftoff and no superheat,,,I think I prefer the thrill of puting controls on Maxims rig,,,CB</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 15, 2005 02:09PM
<HTML>John,
A storage system will be far too heavy and not give the engine steam economy required. A petrol engine weighing about 160 lb would have about 20 us gallons of fuel weighing 123 lb, so about 283 lb total for engine and fuel to give up to 80 hp for 3 hours flying time.
A modern steam system might be able to match the weight but would struggle to match the ICE economy, so I would allow for an extra 30 pound of fuel for the same endurance. Not a big penalty for a total payload of around 500 lb (including 1 or 2 people) but would be marginal for some folks. Steam consumption for 80bhp at an sfc of 7.5 lb/hp/hr would be 600 lb/hr - so 1,800 lb for 3 hours. Without a fully condensing, superheated system you wouldn't even be able to take off because the feed tank would be twice the weight of the aircraft. A closed system might only contain about 20 lb of feed water.
Try replacing this with a saturated steam capacity system with an sfc of about 20 lb/hp/hr. For 80 hp you would need 1600 lb/hr and for a three hour trip, 4,800 lb. To meet the weight limits you would be restricted to about 150 lb of stored steam. That would give you a duration of about 5.6 minutes total engine running time at full power so enough to get airborne but you might not have time to do a circuit and get back to the landing strip. For lighter planes that can get away with half as much power, a suitable adjustment to the numbers can be made.
The above calculations are not wild guesses but based on known performances of typical current ultra light aircraft.
As they say in the trade - this is one idea that would not fly.
Graeme</HTML>
A storage system will be far too heavy and not give the engine steam economy required. A petrol engine weighing about 160 lb would have about 20 us gallons of fuel weighing 123 lb, so about 283 lb total for engine and fuel to give up to 80 hp for 3 hours flying time.
A modern steam system might be able to match the weight but would struggle to match the ICE economy, so I would allow for an extra 30 pound of fuel for the same endurance. Not a big penalty for a total payload of around 500 lb (including 1 or 2 people) but would be marginal for some folks. Steam consumption for 80bhp at an sfc of 7.5 lb/hp/hr would be 600 lb/hr - so 1,800 lb for 3 hours. Without a fully condensing, superheated system you wouldn't even be able to take off because the feed tank would be twice the weight of the aircraft. A closed system might only contain about 20 lb of feed water.
Try replacing this with a saturated steam capacity system with an sfc of about 20 lb/hp/hr. For 80 hp you would need 1600 lb/hr and for a three hour trip, 4,800 lb. To meet the weight limits you would be restricted to about 150 lb of stored steam. That would give you a duration of about 5.6 minutes total engine running time at full power so enough to get airborne but you might not have time to do a circuit and get back to the landing strip. For lighter planes that can get away with half as much power, a suitable adjustment to the numbers can be made.
The above calculations are not wild guesses but based on known performances of typical current ultra light aircraft.
As they say in the trade - this is one idea that would not fly.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: January 15, 2005 02:21PM
<HTML>Hi Ben,
No, the drawings in all the books I have dealing with the Manley engine all show pushrod exhaust valve operation. The valves were on the side of the cylinder, suction inlet on top and exhaust valve right below the inlet.
I wonder what engine you are thinking about?? Or are you seeing the wires to the spark plugs, which were centered on top of the fabricated cylinders?
JC</HTML>
No, the drawings in all the books I have dealing with the Manley engine all show pushrod exhaust valve operation. The valves were on the side of the cylinder, suction inlet on top and exhaust valve right below the inlet.
I wonder what engine you are thinking about?? Or are you seeing the wires to the spark plugs, which were centered on top of the fabricated cylinders?
JC</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: January 15, 2005 04:17PM
<HTML>Jim,,The engine was a wonder of Victorian light weight,,,I was in awe of what I saw and knew I should pay attention to it.The wires somewhat like the control wires on a motorcycle were [silver?] solderd to a small adjuster,,3/16 pehaps,,So much lighter than std practice,,,Frank E H Johnson spoke of a WW-1 bike they had in France,,like this,,they converted to desmodromic while in the servace in Paris,,,he always wanted to go back and see if they could find it behind the brick wall they hid it behind,,,Definately what I saw was a pullwire,,,I remember the date given was before sparkplugs,,DeDion and Panhard pioneerd jump spark,,Most plugs screw in,,a few are on a flange plate,,I knew less of the history of ign back then but did know about hot tube,as I hung out w/JimLacey at Cameron Bradleys,,he had a 1893 Panhard all original ! tube ign ,, Make an break was considerd more reliable in this early period,,you can pour a bucket of water on er,,an' not skip a beat ! 100 years later its the first place to look,,haha,,, XXX I wonder if there was a earlier, scale model , perhaps ,, that I saw,,It was on a display stand or bench and I dont think it was the 550 cid size that you mention,,the 1907 Packard ''30'' was a 5 x 5.5 b-s which I think I would have noticed real fast as that was my expertese at that time,,,also my favorite car for a sunday drive,,the roadster not the touring,,,It produced 84 hp// Same as my 1925 Packard but at a lower rpm,,1907 was a better car and earier to drive,,I wonder if Manley built more than 1 engine??? Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: John (IP Logged)
Date: January 16, 2005 12:42AM
<HTML>Hi Graeme
I had roughly thought that at the quoted energy storage in super critacal water of 906BTU /Lb and conversion of 2540BTU / Hp. 225Lb of Water would give an endurance of an hour at 80 Hp.
I guess the devil is in the efficiencies. and the weight of the storage system.
Regards
John</HTML>
I had roughly thought that at the quoted energy storage in super critacal water of 906BTU /Lb and conversion of 2540BTU / Hp. 225Lb of Water would give an endurance of an hour at 80 Hp.
I guess the devil is in the efficiencies. and the weight of the storage system.
Regards
John</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Graeme Vagg (IP Logged)
Date: January 16, 2005 03:28AM
<HTML>John,
You might be able to store about that much energy at super critical conditions but the extra weight of the water and container would need to be offset by the passenger staying behind. If you could achieve a system thermal efficiency of 20% the range would be 12 minutes. At a more likely 8 to 10% with the lower temperature cycle the range is back to 4.8 to 6 minutes. An on-board superheater would improve the range but on balance a normal light weight boiler would give the best result.
Graeme</HTML>
You might be able to store about that much energy at super critical conditions but the extra weight of the water and container would need to be offset by the passenger staying behind. If you could achieve a system thermal efficiency of 20% the range would be 12 minutes. At a more likely 8 to 10% with the lower temperature cycle the range is back to 4.8 to 6 minutes. An on-board superheater would improve the range but on balance a normal light weight boiler would give the best result.
Graeme</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 16, 2005 11:24AM
<HTML> John W. has just included two articles from the 1940's on "Steam Aviation and Steam Aeroplane" on the main page under "Papers and Perspectives".
These were originally posted on Carl Petersen's Firedragon website years ago---still looking for the elusive Whitehead paper.
George</HTML>
These were originally posted on Carl Petersen's Firedragon website years ago---still looking for the elusive Whitehead paper.
George</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 16, 2005 11:58AM
<HTML> JW has included two papers on steam aeroplanes on the main website under "papers and perspectives".
A Whitehead link is [www.deepsky.com]
Also many news articles by advancing to /articles.html .
George</HTML>
A Whitehead link is [www.deepsky.com]
Also many news articles by advancing to /articles.html .
George</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Brian McMorran (IP Logged)
Date: January 17, 2005 09:23PM
<HTML>I came across a 1919 patent (GB145554) for a "flying machine" steam generator by Rollin Henry White and Earle Roth Newton.
Also a 1920 patent (GB159893) for Earle Roth Newton and Fank McDowel Leavitt.
Obviously White was still interested in steam after car production stopped, but who are the other two gentlemen?</HTML>
Also a 1920 patent (GB159893) for Earle Roth Newton and Fank McDowel Leavitt.
Obviously White was still interested in steam after car production stopped, but who are the other two gentlemen?</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: David K. Nergaard (IP Logged)
Date: January 19, 2005 01:20PM
<HTML>There was considerable interest in aero-steam power plants in the mid 1930s for high altitude work. That ended with the development of turbo-chargers which made supercharging an Otto engine practical at much lighter weight than a gear driven blower.</HTML>
Re: aerosteamer
Posted by: Ben in Maine (IP Logged)
Date: March 30, 2005 01:31PM
<HTML>Hi I just triped onto mention of Clement Adler steam airplane engine,1893,,engine in a museum in France,,no address or name of museum [grrr] The engine looks to be somewhat similar to Maxim...Ben</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.