Double Blind AH Challenge!
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
Well back then airships were just giant floating BAGS of air with a oversized basket beneath them. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to have one of them full of important passengers explode?
Or maybe go to the first world war and have the yanks notice the Mexican bomber ships and shoot them down before they bomb those fuel tanks and blow up half of San Francisco...
Or maybe go to the first world war and have the yanks notice the Mexican bomber ships and shoot them down before they bomb those fuel tanks and blow up half of San Francisco...
There would need to be some sort of development in engine technology, I think. The problem with aeroplanes is that you can't make a caloric engine small enough and powerful enough to drive a heavier than air craft to the speeds needed for sustained lift.
I don't think it could be done after 1900 since Ericsson's caloric engines designs from the mid 1850s have been the standard in propulsion since. The steam powered engines of the time were just econmically infeasible, with the extra weight in fuel rather than cargo, and caloric techology took off.
I guess what we need to see is a powerplant of some kind that can generate more energy per mass. I remember reading somewhere about experiments with highly refined and distilled petroleum as a fuel, but the sunstance was so explosive and flammable I can't see how it could be contolled.
I don't think it could be done after 1900 since Ericsson's caloric engines designs from the mid 1850s have been the standard in propulsion since. The steam powered engines of the time were just econmically infeasible, with the extra weight in fuel rather than cargo, and caloric techology took off.
I guess what we need to see is a powerplant of some kind that can generate more energy per mass. I remember reading somewhere about experiments with highly refined and distilled petroleum as a fuel, but the sunstance was so explosive and flammable I can't see how it could be contolled.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Gasoleum, I think its called. Terrible stuff, smelly and awfully dangerous. You have to vent the tank just right and even then it can go up at any moment. They've tried it in land vehicles as well though I can't see how it could match steam or electric.
It's been experimented with. Someday they may even find a pilot crazy enough to go up in one.
But they're also expensive. The engines have to be made of aluminum to save weight and even after all that trouble theory says that the biggest would be scarcely over 500 feet long. How could you carry any cargo in something so tiny?
As far as discrediting airships I don't see how. What can hurt Kevlar at 80,000 feet?
It's been experimented with. Someday they may even find a pilot crazy enough to go up in one.
But they're also expensive. The engines have to be made of aluminum to save weight and even after all that trouble theory says that the biggest would be scarcely over 500 feet long. How could you carry any cargo in something so tiny?
As far as discrediting airships I don't see how. What can hurt Kevlar at 80,000 feet?
Impossible. The lift requirements for a heavier than air craft is complicated... too complicated. Airships are reliable, I mean remember the Hindenburg? It made it to New Jersey safely. Remember those contraptions those Wright brothers made? They were dangerous. Didn't some of their 'pilots' get killed on their later 'flights'? Plus, the inefficiency of these 'aeroplanes' compared to airships. I'll stick to my dirigibles, thank you.
Hmm... Well, there is something to be said regarding speed. Those Wright contraptions moved awfully fast- a fact that the pilots found out the hard way when they ran into the ground. If some way could be found to make the aeroplanes more reliable- and especially more efficient- then it's possible that their speed would have made them more economical than the derigible, even considering the latter's massive cargo capacity.
Of course, the derigible would have still found a niche in reliable passenger service. Engines of any kind are bloody noisy; I think passengers would have felt much more comfortable to be in an airship, far away from the thrum of the motors pushing the derigible forward. Since they replaced that flammable coating with non-flammable materials like Kevlar, derigibles would have just been far more reliable, and therefore preferred by passengers.
This thread does raise an interesting though regarding the military, though. As you'll recall, there were a few attempts during WWI to use derigibles to drop artillery shells on enemy positions; however, derigibles are simply too large and fragile for use in the military- modified artillery brought them down easily. If aeroplanes could be made more reliable, with the potential for larger payloads, then they may have been small, fast, and strong enough to drop shells on enemy positions without being killed. Further, less vulnerable craft may have been able to carry out reconnaissance further behind enemy lines, and insert troops closer to the front than derigibles. With these abilities, it's possible that Germany may not have been bogged down in France in WWII; the effects of this would be tremendous, as has been discussed elsewhere on these forums.
Of course, the derigible would have still found a niche in reliable passenger service. Engines of any kind are bloody noisy; I think passengers would have felt much more comfortable to be in an airship, far away from the thrum of the motors pushing the derigible forward. Since they replaced that flammable coating with non-flammable materials like Kevlar, derigibles would have just been far more reliable, and therefore preferred by passengers.
This thread does raise an interesting though regarding the military, though. As you'll recall, there were a few attempts during WWI to use derigibles to drop artillery shells on enemy positions; however, derigibles are simply too large and fragile for use in the military- modified artillery brought them down easily. If aeroplanes could be made more reliable, with the potential for larger payloads, then they may have been small, fast, and strong enough to drop shells on enemy positions without being killed. Further, less vulnerable craft may have been able to carry out reconnaissance further behind enemy lines, and insert troops closer to the front than derigibles. With these abilities, it's possible that Germany may not have been bogged down in France in WWII; the effects of this would be tremendous, as has been discussed elsewhere on these forums.
I think if heavier than air craft were made feasible somehow they'd be limited to military and specialized civilian use. Perhaps high speed mail delivery or, like was said earlier, military reconaissance. But the general public wouldn't embrace aeroplanes, I feel. They couldn't be amde large enough for efficient cargo or passenger transport, would be noisy and smelly, and downright dangerous. Besides, if you did need to get from, say, NY to London in a few hours instead of a day or 2, no one else is likely to, so they can take the airship. European travelers are usually on vacation anyway, so a leisurly trip to and from your destination is just what most people are looking for, not a loud, noisy jaunt that's over before you know it.
Impossible. The great stand-still of '40 has shown us that a thoroughly constructed blimp defense can withstand any heavier-than-air contraptions.
If those did get popular, it most certainly won't be in the military
- they can't carry enough punch, an artillery shell is more powerful
- they are too expensive but can be shot down using a MG
- they can be stopped dead in their tracks by a blimp defense
- any damage they do on the ground will be a rather hollow victory when the ground troops can't follow up stuck in the trenches
Much easier to develop missile armed zeppelins than those flying coffins!
If those did get popular, it most certainly won't be in the military
- they can't carry enough punch, an artillery shell is more powerful
- they are too expensive but can be shot down using a MG
- they can be stopped dead in their tracks by a blimp defense
- any damage they do on the ground will be a rather hollow victory when the ground troops can't follow up stuck in the trenches
Much easier to develop missile armed zeppelins than those flying coffins!
What if we imagine a world where Canada and the US decided to horde their helium? Let's imagine an embargo due to a trade dispute. The only other useful gas is, of course, hydrogen. Helium extraction techniques in the 1900's and 1910's were very primitive, and these two countries could have had a near lock on the supply.
In the eariler days, the chemical and metals industry were not at all like today. The skins of those early airships were FLAMMABLE!. The aluminum of the day melted at a fairly low temperature.
What if a long series of disasters occured? I'm not talking just on the freighters, but also on a few of the PASSENGER airships, which might have been forced to use high-pressure hydrogen. Would that have been enough to encourge the 'flying brick' bunch to find a more useful heavier-than-air design?
Suppose also that there might have been no eco-backlash against the coal-fired railways. Might there have been a viable rail industry to this day?
In the eariler days, the chemical and metals industry were not at all like today. The skins of those early airships were FLAMMABLE!. The aluminum of the day melted at a fairly low temperature.
What if a long series of disasters occured? I'm not talking just on the freighters, but also on a few of the PASSENGER airships, which might have been forced to use high-pressure hydrogen. Would that have been enough to encourge the 'flying brick' bunch to find a more useful heavier-than-air design?
Suppose also that there might have been no eco-backlash against the coal-fired railways. Might there have been a viable rail industry to this day?
Goddard lives...
Perhaps if Robert Goddard hadn't had that tragic accident with his gasoleum-oxygen powered rocket, a practical power source would have arose. A rocket that can be turned on and off at need, or even throttled back for lower speed landings, might have done the trick. Speeds would be incredible--perhaps even able to match the speed of the great electric trains. My calculations indicate that I might get 300 miles per hour out of one--twice the speed of a commercial airship, and close to the rate the Yankee Flyer runs at from Boston to New York.
The Wright brother's craft was a curiousity, but even curiousitys attract their fans--my little aeroplane is a lot of fun, although I do get strange looks when I mention being that crazy.
I wonder--could aeroplanes travel replace airship travel for trans-atlantic flights? Or even compete with the railways transcontinental?
Anyway, my current project as head of Dublin Aeronauticals' Esoteric Innovations Division is to attemtp a rocket powered aeroplane with modern technology.
(I'm assuming that internal combustion didn't become popular, but still exists here and there. Electric high speed rail is the fastest way of getting around--where the tracks run--developed areas, like Europe, the USA, etc. Airships are far faster than liiners, and have largely replaced them. Airplanes look something like the craft of early 1914.)
Perhaps if Robert Goddard hadn't had that tragic accident with his gasoleum-oxygen powered rocket, a practical power source would have arose. A rocket that can be turned on and off at need, or even throttled back for lower speed landings, might have done the trick. Speeds would be incredible--perhaps even able to match the speed of the great electric trains. My calculations indicate that I might get 300 miles per hour out of one--twice the speed of a commercial airship, and close to the rate the Yankee Flyer runs at from Boston to New York.
The Wright brother's craft was a curiousity, but even curiousitys attract their fans--my little aeroplane is a lot of fun, although I do get strange looks when I mention being that crazy.
I wonder--could aeroplanes travel replace airship travel for trans-atlantic flights? Or even compete with the railways transcontinental?
Anyway, my current project as head of Dublin Aeronauticals' Esoteric Innovations Division is to attemtp a rocket powered aeroplane with modern technology.
(I'm assuming that internal combustion didn't become popular, but still exists here and there. Electric high speed rail is the fastest way of getting around--where the tracks run--developed areas, like Europe, the USA, etc. Airships are far faster than liiners, and have largely replaced them. Airplanes look something like the craft of early 1914.)
When governments get involved in scientific research, it's often a bad thing. We just got lucky in OTL. If the US and British governments hadn't bothered, or if the bureaucracies had done their usual job of botching things up, and if more private entrepreneurs had been encouraged--or, at least, not discouraged...?