WesWorld

I am claiming a 'patent' on an idea I've had for WW.

Steam turbine engines for very long-range flying boats and aircraft.

Before everyone either kicks up a fuss, or dies laughing, I'm not building them until the 1940s I'm just making sure no-one else steals my idea in the meantime. I'm open to co-operation with other nations to build such an engine.

Very funny because I was thinking of incorporating the Sakura Taisen universe into Wesworld Japan. In the Sakura Taisen universe (which takes place in the 1920s btw), everything in Japan is steam powered: Cars, planes, tanks, ships, trains (well those last two are fairly obvious)... and the Koubu Spirit Armour!!
... of course if I were to incorporate that into the Wesworld, we would have demons everywhere.

So long no one tries muscling in on Canada's Mako monopoly... ^_^

ShinRa... remember where the game came from?

I am intrigued, Hood. Please say more.

I am now wondering how such a plane will look like. I know how they look like in ST... but if you follow that route, your nickname of 'Ugly Aircraft, Inc' will need to be changed to something much, much worse.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
ShinRa... remember where the game came from?

Quiet you, or I'll turn you into a tourist trap for my Department of Administrative Research to imbibe alcoholic beverages at. (:

You know its funny you mentioned this James, I was looking through an old Locomotive indent guide and I was interested with some of the more unorthodox engine systems like Coal-fired steam turbines and gas-turbines.

Ok folks, I wasn't going to reveal much yet but since the interest is there here are the reasons why to build one.

From 1943 Junkers (the engine side) began studies on 3,000-4,000hp steam turbines. These were half the size of the Jumo 213 then in development but as you can see offered superior power.

Here are the advantages:

Doesn't need high octane fuel, you can run it on heavy oils and even coal dust mixed with gasoline. I'd probably use normal fuel but the flexiblity is there.

More efficient and better power-to -weight ratio than conventional piston engines.

Smaller engine, dimensions would be about 1,100mm and 600-650mm wide, can be housed in a smaller nacelle to cut drag and the other componets can be in the wing itself.

The turbine could be used to power generators and pressurisation gear too.

Constant power at varying heights

Capacity for 100 per cent overloading, even for long periods

Full steam power can be obtained within 5-10 seconds

Not sensitive to low temperatures

Long life and simple servicing requirements

Simple and quick control

Disadvatages:

Might take some time to stoke up before take-off

Cooling, evaporative cooling cant be used so condensers needed, the whole system generates alot of heat (keeps crew warm though!)

Pipes to and from boilers and condensers prone to combat damage.

Boilers quite large, 1m high and 1.2m long and there will be four of them, and also prone to combat damage although they could be in the fuselage.

I'm not sure that the weight includes the weight of the boilers. Factoring in the boiler weight and the power/weight ratio is definitely down on piston engines. They are more efficient, probably around 35% t.e. as opposed to 25%(ish) for petrol.

The power will definitely vary with height as the air will thin and the fuel will not combust in the boiler as well because of the lack of oxygen. You'll have to include a supercharger forcing more air through the system. This'll drain power from the turbine.

I don't think it beats a GTE along the Metrovick lines. For efficiency yes, but I don't think the weight and space saved with the GTE is offset by the extra fuel load carried.

I'm sure a form of draught fan was intended for the German engine, a supercharger would be added.

It might not beat a turboprop but such things are way in the future, jets in WW are still some way off. The steam turbine offers turobprop type perfromance for larger aircraft without the fancy alloys and engineering problems the jet engine will create.

Weight will have to include water too, heavier fuels will also increase weight.

I'm thinking about using it in a large flying boat for passenger use and a large bomber in the mid 1940s.

One strange question what will it sound like? Will it whine like a jet, thrum like a turboprop or will it hisss?

EMBRAER would be very interested in a joint development programme; while the Empire's government boffins aren't as optimistic, they do see the possibilites for 'spin-off' steam turbines for locomotives...

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
EMBRAER would be very interested in a joint development programme; while the Empire's government boffins aren't as optimistic, they do see the possibilites for 'spin-off' steam turbines for locomotives...

Stealing idea's huh Swampy?

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
You know its funny you mentioned this James, I was looking through an old Locomotive indent guide and I was interested with some of the more unorthodox engine systems like Coal-fired steam turbines and gas-turbines.

At any rate all the steam/gas turbine powered loco's I could find were built in the very late 40's/early 50's and only lasted about 3-4 years before being taken out of service. My guess was the maintenance for these types was much more expensive than the diesel-electrics that were rapidly surpassing steam powered loco's.

Heh, actually I hadn't even noticed that before...

I don't remember exactly the details I once read, but IIRC the steam-turbine locos would have been quite practical on longer routes, start-and-stop routes were less economical (same problem as gas turbines)?

IMHO, the thing to do would be turbine-electric locomotives, although probably only viable for express trains - otherwise you might as well use heavier but more efficient diesels. Saying that, heavier isn't necessarily a bad thing for trains, they're funny like that.

Well, one thing about this, if Argentina follows through on it, it'll be in good position for the atomic aircraft projects....

Don't give me ideas!

However buildiong a workable reactor and shrinking it would take at least ten years on top of the turbine programme. Still if the turbine catches on as a powerplant someone else might do it.

The weight needed for shielding more or less kills off the idea unless you go to a really really large aircraft, say Lockheed's flying aircraft carrier with MTOW of around 3million lbs.

Or go unmanned and raise two fingers to shielding. Which is every bit as practical as a three million pound aircraft.

Had another evil thought last night, given that Argentina will be messing around with HTP rockets in the early 1940s maybe the turbine could be powered by this lovely substance which produces an abundance of steam, would save the weight of boilers too. Also won't need any other fluids as a silver guaze will oxidize the HTP and makes loads of steam to drive a turbine.

Any thoughts on if this is feasible?