STEAM POWERED AIRPLANE

I have alwasy been interested in steam power in the car. Some very good ones were built. I wonder about the all up weight including water, boiler, fuel oil, condensing system of the propulsion system and what kind of duration you could expect from the on board water supply. As far as the power charcteristics, seems like steam is a great way to swing a prop.

 

Market a steam engine as new hybrid technology to hippies and make billions.

 

The condensing system tends to be the limiting factor. You need a lot of area to re-condense the steam. Also while steam engines can be very compact, the ones that are don't tend to have as much expansion ratio and that means they are inefficient and therefore need even bigger condensers. Lots of early steam cars didn't recondense so they used a lot of water and it wasn't efficient either.

Still a neat way to make power, just not cheap or light or small.

 

Have you guys checked out

http://www.steamcar.net/z-kimmel-3.html


Steam powered car club webpage, lotsa interesting steam powered goodness.

 

Lear built some steam powered vehicles some years ago. The was a nice article a few years ago in AQ.

 

I'm glad that we found this truly astounding advanced STEAMPLANETRAIN design in the archives where it lay dormant for 40 years. It was so far ahead of its time that no one could comprehend the scientific concepts. The advanced aerodynamics can be seen in the supercritical aerofoil and strategic wing placement ahead of and over and under the boiler. Just look at the forward thinking used in the cowcatcher design. It is placed high enough to completely miss any flying cow and direct it into the firebox where it is quickly barbequed for the crew. The propellor is one of secret design that operates in concert with the driver wheels that spin so fast that there is no need for a track.
Ah. The genius of an 8 year old and Spassosteam.
Switches The Elder

 

Agree that with on "open" cycle where the steam is vented to the atmosphere (as in an old locomotive) that steam engines are pretty inefficient. But if you install a condenser, you can get a thermal efficiency of about 25% and that's actually better than any gasoline engine operating at max efficiency, and most autos run at an efficiency of less than 10% under most conditions, so actually a steam car or airplane could be more efficient than a gasoline engine. Also agree that maintenance and the need to add water every 60 miles or so really doomed steam engines in rail service. The diesels were much more efficient and didn't require the maintenance of a big steam engine.

Henry Ford was a real steam freak, he collected lots of steam engines and at the Ford Museum there are lots of neat steam stuff, including a few large Locomotives, impressive machines...

 

Check out a Noble some time. You can look it over pretty well and miss the fact it is a steam car.

 

Actually I think you were a little ahead of your time. With all the money being poured into green tech I think you have some pretty good ground work here to apply for a large grant. With you and your fathers background you should be a shoe in, just drop Al Gores name.
Tell them you are going to slap some solar panels on the horizontal surfaces and it is going to be a steam/electrical hybrid. Maybe figure out how to incorporate a wind mill on it somewhere. Buzz words are important in the application process.

You didn't really want to spend the rest of your life working at the tube factory ...did you?

 

We are actually putting in a DOE proposal on a turbine engine with a heat recovery system that would you could use to power a steam bottoming cycle or use the exhaust for co-gen. Today we were looking up to see what the best stationary natural gas and diesel engines could do compared to our turbine. Good diesels are around .36 pounds per hp hr. Most natural gas burners were around .42, and the best that any natural gas stationary recip engines had was an equivalent SFC of about .402lbs/hp-hr, which is less than 30% efficiency (I think the number was around 28%, but I'd have to look it up to be sure, I just recall it was less than 30%). That was a max power SFC, the pumping losses get worse at lower power conditions. Cars and airplanes are for sure worse than that at max power. Most gasoline powered aircraft recips have an sfc of around .5 to .55, although more modern engines could probably be better... Not to say that steam is really that much better, and for an efficient one, it would be a really big and heavy machine.

Steam bottoming cycles are a good option for stationary turbines, since the exhaust temp of an efficient turbine is around 800 F, which is just right for a steam engine. If you look at how much heat is coming out of the turbine you can recover a lot more heat from the turbine, since there is twice as much energy in the exhaust than in a diesel. Typical diesels make about 30% thermal efficiency, about 30% of the energy is going out of the radiator and 30% is coming out the exhaust. With a turbine, 25% comes out the shaft, and about 70% is available for heat recovery.

 

Another place where a steam cycle "might" make sense is for a really high altitude long endurance airplane. Recip engines need multiple stages of turbo charging, and intercooling to work up there, and the efficiency isn't as good since the compression ratio has to be lower and the recip is getting pretty heavy. Boeing did a big HALE (High Altitude Long Endurance) unmanned airplane in the 80's, and it had Conti water cooled recips in it as I recall. They had two or three stages of turbochargers on them to run up there.

Gas turbines get pretty big when you are trying to make power where the air is really thin, I think they were looking at something the size of a T56 to make 400 hp up there..

The steam engine combustor and condenser would get bigger, but the rest of the engine would stay the same. The air is really cold up there, so maybe the condenser wouldn't have to be as big as one might think...

Not sure how big the condenser would have to be to work at 60,000 feet tho since the air is so thin...

 

All sounds like a lot of HOT AIR to me DJ. Steamstang......sortta has a ring to it, eh? How about Steamorossa? Sortta like a 4-6-4 chuggin along in 5 gear at 1700 rpm pulling a grade. Just keep on feathering in the throttle and the torquey red beast keeps picking up rpm and mph. Back to KF early Sun am with the TR. Lots of that low rpm torquey chuggin up the hill stuff. O hell, another thread shot down. Time for Brian to chime in with 'not these guys again'.

 

That coper bust you for that non standard Euro type plate or because you were going too slow again?

 

Thats a good start. Now just put another prop on the outlet duct and call it a regenerator.

Wow, another buzz word for the grant application.

With svelt lines like that thing you could name it after the father of the modern green movement, Al Gore.

 

Looks like a Gee Bee after it got knocked up. Or maybe a Gee Bee mated with a Pregnant Guppy and that is what popped out.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

WOW....what a riot. Yor be a funny guy Brian. Yor realize that th Dago Barrel Typo Una was modeled off of some swarthy Italian chick. Hence its robust form. You also must realize that before you get pilota time in the TF-51 that you must have 5 hrs dual in the Flying Barrel.....which by the way whose instructor pilota is a fuggly round gal that closely imulates her aeroplano. Bet she smells bad 2. Abondanza............