Steampowered Dieselpunk Aircraft
Posted By Traveler on 2. Januar 2012
Another wonderful piece of tech art I found on DeviantArt. The concept behind it is rather weird, but we can still dream, can’t we?
So, to sum up what this is about: This is an experimental German aircraft (from a completely different time line) powered by a steam turbine. I actually wonder if it would be possible to create a steam engine efficient enough to get a figher aircraft into the air.
If any of my readers happen to be aeronautical engineers, I would appreciate some input regarding this matter.
The artist, as you can see in the image, is CUTANGUS. Check out his gallery on DeviantArt! He has quite a collection of all sorts of flying machine, some very Dieselpunk, others far more advanced than that.
People who looked at this item also looked at…
Related items
Comments
3 Responses to “Steampowered Dieselpunk Aircraft”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
I am an anthropologist and in this capacity a minor scholar of the Cthulhu Mythos and H.P. Lovecraft. I am also quite obviously heavily into Steampunk and Dieselpunk and like travelling.
[...] Another wonderful piece of tech art I found on DeviantArt. The concept behind it is rather weird, but we can still dream, can’t we? (via @Yithmas) – Today, 6:02 [...]
It reminds me of a cross between the VTOL Convair Pogo (design) and the coal-fired vessels from Mutant Chronicles (power source).
I really don’t think a steam-powered fighter would be feasible. I’m no aeronautical engineer or anything, but I do have a pilot license.
1) Power to Weight Ratio: The general consensus is that steam is simply inefficient compared to an internal combustion engine. If you had a 100hp steam engine and a 100hp internal combustion engine, the steam engine would likely be heavier since it requires a boiler, piping, a water supply, heavier fuels, etc. The gasoline engine is simply more compact. A fighter is supposed to be nimble and slender. The weight of a full steam engine would bog it down.
2) Conversion to energy: Gasoline simply burns more quickly, so it takes less time to throttle up to power. I can throttle up a Cessna from idle to full power in a couple seconds. The fuel ignites in the cylinders and directly drives the pistons and turns the propeller shaft..
To do the same in a steam engine requires far more time. The energy is harder to extract from the slow-burning fuel. Even when the fuel is burning it then needs to heat the mass of the water which then needs to boil and convert to steam. Only then can that energy be directed to the transmission or propeller. Along the way, some of the energy is wasted.
3) Fuel Type: Gasoline is of course stored in tanks, which can be put under pressure via pumps so that it can be forced into the engine even during maneuvering. Early fighter aircraft like the P-40 didn’t have fuel injection, so their engines would die under negative G-loading.
So, for our airborne steam engine we’d use fuel oil instead of coal or wood. However, even then, steam rises. What if the aircraft maneuvers and rolls inverted. Would the rising steam go to the now-bottom of the tank and cut off the power?
Just my opinion. Someone with an engineering background may feel differently.
Hey Mark,
this is quite a lot of information, thank you. And even though you are not an engineer, the reasons you give why it would most likely not be feasable are very reasonable and fit to what I heard before.