Electric Car? How about a Compressed Air Car?

wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 10:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dave wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
:

Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
compressed air.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any
source of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high
initial cost?

It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of
the last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes
before you went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no
condensers and you had to top them up with water after about 30 miles
and the cars that recycled like the White were extremely complex to
operate (even the stanleys were pretty daunting)
The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost
silent. Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that
was taken off them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end
the convienience of the IC engine won out after they were simplified
enough to be easy for almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about
1930 for at least one make (I think it was Doble), White lasted up at
least through the first war with steam (they still exist , of course)
and Stanley into the 20s I believe.

Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..

Bertie

Here is some steam power for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aphQNGOz7v8



mmm, kay.

I almost forgot, there was one steam powered airplane. It was built
around '29 and was really just meant to show off the inventors' very
efficient steam engine. It was called the Besler engine and they put it
on either a Waco9 or Travel Air 2000. I read my first account of it
years ago in Flying, I think. It worked quite well but was never
intended as serious replacement for IC.

It's party trick was it's ability to run backwards, though it took a
little while to stop and then reverse the prop.whoever flew it did it on
flight and apparently it was fairly spectacular to watch. It also made
landings incredibly short and the airplae could be reversed on the
ground which must have been interesting on an airplane with a tailskid.

I've got an article on it somewhere, but I can't find much on the net
about it.

Bertie

Wow! Found a film of the Besler here! Later than I thought. The airplane is
a relatively early Travel Air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPEv_M7p4fA


Bertie

And another one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NF...eature=related


Bertie

On Nov 16, 12:05 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
And another one!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NF...eature=related

Bertie

I wonder how much the powerplant weighed. I also wonder why they moved
the condensor from under the fuselage (as shown in the drawing) to the
top - where it appeared to do a good job of blocking the pilot's view
ahead.

David Johnson

Dave wrote in
:

On Nov 16, 12:05 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
And another
one!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NF...eature=related

Bertie

I wonder how much the powerplant weighed. I also wonder why they moved
the condensor from under the fuselage (as shown in the drawing) to the
top - where it appeared to do a good job of blocking the pilot's view
ahead.


Looks to me like that were two different rads. Probably one was a condenser
and one an water-oil seperator. I know this was one of the big problem with
recovery, getting the oil out of it.
Blocked pilot's vision was no big deal in those days. Lots of Hisso and OX-
5 powered airplanes had rads in front of the cockpit. It was just a fact of
life. It was alwasy better to have the rad high if you could in case it
leaked. If all the plumbing was below the engine, you had an empty engine
in seconds if something broke. if all the tubes were up, at least you had
something to keep it cool while you got it down.



Bertie