Steam powered plane flies...

[Ale]

… in 1933.

The Besler steam plane, this is something I didn´t know, and I thought I was very knowledgable on aviation history. I even found a video in Youtube; pretty nice trick about reversing the engine for backing up.

There´s just something I don´t understand and it comes from this statement:

For capacities in excess of 1000 horse power a turbine captures the energy released by the expansion of steam more efficiently

So why didn´t they make a steam turbine plane? (talk about contrails with that one!)

In any case I wonder why it didn´t lead to further developments, it seems to work pretty well and since it used fuel oil, very economical to operate.

[carnivorousplant]

I wonder how much water it had to carry, and the range.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

Could the water be recondensed on board? Then you wouldn’t need so much water.

[Ale]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

Could the water be recondensed on board? Then you wouldn’t need so much water.

One of the articles I read said that the condenser (the radiator underd the nose) could recover 90% of the water.

[CalMeacham]

… in 1933.

Heck, a steam-powered airplane flew almost a century before that.

John Stringfellow’s unmanned steam-powered propellor-driven monoplane was demonstrated on August 1, 1848. See my piece in Teemings #15, “First Flight”:

http://www.straightdope.com/teemings/issue15/calmeacham.html

[Ale]

@CalMeacham

Heck, a steam-powered airplane flew almost a century before that.

John Stringfellow’s unmanned steam-powered propellor-driven monoplane was demonstrated on August 1, 1848. See my piece in Teemings #15, “First Flight”:

http://www.straightdope.com/teemings/issue15/calmeacham.html

Well, yes I knew that (honest!), I should have said “manned” plane.

[Tripler]

@Spectre of Pithecanthropus

Could the water be recondensed on board? Then you wouldn’t need so much water.

Educated guess, but the machinery needed to capture, condense, and reuse this water would probably defeat the thrust to weight ratio.

Tripler
Now if they used something lightweight, like freon or something. . .

[Ale]

@Tripler

Educated guess, but the machinery needed to capture, condense, and reuse this water would probably defeat the thrust to weight ratio.

Tripler
Now if they used something lightweight, like freon or something. . .

Or just a simple radiator (middle of page) :

Under the fuselage nose is the condenser -which is simply a section of an ordinary petrol car radiator, and this is said to be sufficient to recover more than ninety per cent of the water from the exhaust steam.

But I´m all for using freon, it makes a design cooler. :smack:

[Tuckerfan]

Ahem See posts 17 and 41. Freon won’t work, BTW. The amount of energy used in phase changing freon from a liquid to a gas is not nearly as much as that used in changing water to steam, and this means that there’s less energy being transmitted to the pistons, turbine blades, etc.

[Tripler]

@Ale

Or just a simple radiator (middle of page) :

My bad. Everytime I hear “steam engine”, I think railroad locomotives. :rolleyes:

Tripler
I still like freon. It tastes like mint chocolate chip ice cream.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Ale

In any case I wonder why it didn´t lead to further developments

Many things invented during the depression didn’t go anywhere, simply because there was very little venture capital available.

In the case of the Besler engine, the article (which isn’t very well written) hints that Boeing was interested in applying it to multiengine aircraft, but it was going to be too heavy when scaled up to provide the needed horsepower.

In addition, gasoline engines were cheap enough to run then that there probably wasn’t much incentive in the single-engine market either.

[Tuckerfan]

Anyone up for a nuclear powered plane? :eek:

[Tully_Mars]

@Tuckerfan

Anyone up for a nuclear powered plane? :eek:

Not nuclear powered, but the NB-36.