Biplanes at TL4?

[christopher.boote]

A Primitive Biplane at TL4?
Primitive Biplane TL4 Cr11,840 1000vl 200kph SI35 AC10
Who's kidding whom?
At TL5, maybe, but even the 200kph is pushing it!
Gliders at TL4, or just barely possibly 50kph primitive biplanes, with SI of 10

And as for the Cargo plane...
Cargo Plane TL4 Cr364,000 10,000vl 600kph SI65 AC8
Just forget it
That's a Late TL5, early TL6 plane AT LEAST!

So... another one for the Errata mark III pile

 

[far-trader]

I think the point of being just TL 4 in this case is that it can be built at that TL not that we historically got it right at that point.

The helicopter (rotary wing craft) is a fair example of some of the issues facing setting a TL in the game for an item.

Da Vinci had the basics sorted out in the mid 1400s, Terran TL 2. What was lacking was the engineering. That took until the mid 1900s, Terran TL 5. That's when the engineering caught up with the vision and a working helicopter was possible.

The bi-plane was more the other way around. The engineering existed as early as the mid 1800s, Terran TL 4. What was lacking was a crucial understanding of lift mechanics. Not lacking for understanding, simple awaiting a eureka moment or the fruits of trial and error. That took until the early 1900s. It could have easily been earlier and that is why I think the book lists TL 4.

 

[christopher.boote]

Further reading shows...

The "Standard Designs" have got the TL right at 5, it' the summary table that's wrong

And there is NO WAY that the tech existed for the Cargo Plane at TL 4

If you want to know more about TL4 flying read up on these guys

George Cayley
Otto Lilienthal
Richard Pearse

and most important of all
Percy Pilcher, who flew powered controlled flight 4 years before the Wright brothers

 

[aramis]

Uh, Christopher, Pilcher died in a crash before he could.

Towed gliders, BTW, do NOT count as powered flight, but as kites.

Now, he did have controlled heavier than air flights.... but none with on-board motors.

 

[Ishmael]

I don't think the issue was design or engineering as much as it was materials science. If they'd have had materials light enough with the required strength, they could have done it easily enough. IIRC, one of the things that set the Wright brothers apart was that they designed and built their own engine to be very lightweight. I could be wrong because I'm not bothering to look it up right now, but at tech 4, wasn't pretty much only cast iron available ( can't make an ic engine out of wood, right? ) and cast iron thats not as strong as what we have nowadays?

material science determines what can and can't be built...

 

[christopher.boote]

Uh, Christopher, Pilcher died in a crash before he could.

Now, he did have controlled heavier than air flights.... but none with on-board motors.

Young Percy was a paranoid, obsessive compulsive control-freak

There is NO WAY that he would have sent messages to the London & Manchester bigwigs & money men to travel to Leicestershire to show off his powered triplane unless he had tested it (possibly excessively) thoroughly first

His diary implies strongly that he had flown it successfully on September 27th and 28th, when he sent the letter, then twice on the 30th

In all cases he flew the (unnamed) 'plane late in the afternoon or evening

His demonstration was due to be in the morning of the 2nd, but he hadn't counted upon the problems associated with running his engine in the cold damp October morning air, so he offered to fly his Hawk in the morning, and show off the powered glider after lunch

Sadly, the accident precluded that

(I know a bit about this subject...

 

[aramis]

Aside from his diary, there is little evidence that he flew it.

And flying it tethered doesn't count, either, in terms of powered controlled flight; if that did, the animal towed ballons of the US Civil War count.

He came close. He didn't achieve, and most of the so-called evidence reads more like propaganda.

Now, I don't doubt that his design would fly, but it never flew with him in it, and it's not certain he ever flew it tethered with the motor running.

 

[christopher.boote]

I think we'll have to accept that we disagree here

While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I concur that there is no reliable proof that he ever flew his Hawk-plus-motor, even tethered

 

[atpollard]

I think that an aluminum engine was critical to the success of the early biplanes (provided critical hp to weight ratio needed to allow flight). Could an aluminum engine be produced at TL 4 (1860-1900) or was TL 5 (1900-1940) the earliest that aluminum could be mass produced? An aircraft made from a metal costing more than gold will not be a standard form of transportation.

 

[Arthur Denger]

I think that an aluminum engine was critical to the success of the early biplanes (provided critical hp to weight ratio needed to allow flight). Could an aluminum engine be produced at TL 4 (1860-1900) or was TL 5 (1900-1940) the earliest that aluminum could be mass produced? An aircraft made from a metal costing more than gold will not be a standard form of transportation.

I think you're mistaken, Arthur. I doubt that an aluminum block at TL 4-6 would have withstood the physical and thermal rigors of internal combustion. If I recall from my trip to the Air & Space museum years ago, I think the earliest aeroplane ICEs may have had brass or bronze alloy combustion chambers, which were soon replaced by steel.

Airworthiness has little to do with weight, and everything to do with the (then poorly understood) principles of aerodynamics. The critical factors were airframe balance and the discovery of an effective airfoil design (one which allowed adequate lift). The latter was a stumbling block to manned flight from DaVinci's time through early WWI (the Fokker Eindecker monoplane was notorious for its near-neutral speed/lift {stall} ratio, and might have killed as many German pilots as Allied ones).

 

[aramis]

Thrust:weight ratios are vitally important; Early aircraft were simply not powerful enough for speed and thus for altitude.

Within 15 years, engin tech had advanced since people NEEDED it. (And not just for aeroplanes... but also the growing automobile industry.)

More power, less weight, longer endurace, less maintenance has been the goal of all motor vehicle engine designers. The four factors resulted in powerful and relatively light radial engines by WW2, but they traded off endurance and maintenance times to get them.