Overmod ndbprr I can not come up with one technology that was replaced with another technology that was ever ressurected and used again. Acetaminophen.
ndbprr I can not come up with one technology that was replaced with another technology that was ever ressurected and used again.
Acetaminophen.
Biplanes went as far as they could go by about 1937 as far as military aircraft were concerned. Yet, they are still in use as cropdusters because of the superior lift they have.As far as I'm concerned, the last biplanes were the most beautiful aircraft ever, but I digress.
In Canada, they still use the Lee-Enfield .303 rifle on the Arctic patrol as they will stand up under the conditions. Some things do come back or never really go away. But steam? Not likely for all the reasons that have been stated. Sure, it would be nice, but think of the infrastructure, the people that must be hired. No, don't see it happening.
54light15 Biplanes went as far as they could go by about 1937 as far as military aircraft were concerned. Yet, they are still in use as cropdusters because of the superior lift they have.As far as I'm concerned, the last biplanes were the most beautiful aircraft ever, but I digress. In Canada, they still use the Lee-Enfield .303 rifle on the Arctic patrol as they will stand up under the conditions. Some things do come back or never really go away. But steam? Not likely for all the reasons that have been stated. Sure, it would be nice, but think of the infrastructure, the people that must be hired. No, don't see it happening.
The Soviets build huge numbers of the AN-2 transport, a very large biplane (12,000 lbs. GTW) design with excellent rough field STOL cpabilities.
Production actually lasted all the way to 2002, with over 18,000 built. Many are still in service today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 54light15 Biplanes went as far as they could go by about 1937 as far as military aircraft were concerned. Yet, they are still in use as cropdusters because of the superior lift they have.As far as I'm concerned, the last biplanes were the most beautiful aircraft ever... The Soviets [built] huge numbers of the AN-2 transport, a very large biplane (12,000 lbs. GTW) design ...
54light15 Biplanes went as far as they could go by about 1937 as far as military aircraft were concerned. Yet, they are still in use as cropdusters because of the superior lift they have.As far as I'm concerned, the last biplanes were the most beautiful aircraft ever...
Biplanes went as far as they could go by about 1937 as far as military aircraft were concerned. Yet, they are still in use as cropdusters because of the superior lift they have.As far as I'm concerned, the last biplanes were the most beautiful aircraft ever...
The Soviets [built] huge numbers of the AN-2 transport, a very large biplane (12,000 lbs. GTW) design ...
Wouldn't you consider a turbojet biplane even more modern? Not really sure that it could be called 'the most beautiful ever', though... !
Jeez, that PZL jet biplane was UG-LEEEEE! No wonder it was a flop. Aeronautical engineers have a saying, "If it looks good, it'll fly good."
The amazing thing is, it's usually true. Many of the failed aircraft designs of the past were flying eyesores as well.
That PZL is a sesquiplane, not a biplane. One and a half wings, not two. There is or was an Antonov at the Hamilton Warbirds museum a few years ago and it is HUGE! When I say most beautiful, I mean aircraft like the Heinkel 51, the Gloster Gladiator, the Boeing F4B, the Hawker Fury and the Staggerwing Beechcraft.
Technology can only take you so far. Once jets came in, development of piston-engined aircraft, for the military anyway, stopped. I saw in a museum in Harford, CT one of the last radial engines devloped, a 4-row, 32 cylinder monster. The technology went no further. But, the last piston powered aircraft were pretty spiffy like the Grumman Bearcat and I love the Lockheed P-38!
I'm starting to think that piston powered automobiles are nearing the limit of thier technology. There's a Tesla sedan in my neighbourhood. There's a child seat in the back and coffee cups in the console like any other car. Will gasoline powered cars go away in my lifetime? Probably not. But, thanks to people like the ones who built the Tornado and are now building a P2 Mikado and others, we will always have steam!
This is just my general observation, but isn't interesting that when someone brings up running steam locomotives for general service. The naysayers always come out in force, telling us all in great detail why it will never ever happen. It seems to me that some people are never happy unless everyone else is sad just like them.
Tim, I loved steam locomotives when thery were in regular use through my home town, and I love them still. I love to see and ride behind the ones that operate today, and I love to reminisce. But your last comments really make me wonder whether you've actually read the comments on this thread and given the subject serious thought. If you really want oil fired steam locos to make a big-time comeback in regular, general service, then I suggest you invest all of your money in the idea and tell us how that works out for you.
Tom
Fuel kind and price isn't what killed revenue steam in the US and most other countries - it was all the care and maintenance as well as water treatment that the beasts required. Wonderous to see in operation - hell on wheels (and the bottom line) to keep operating.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BastaTim This is just my general observation, but isn't interesting that when someone brings up running steam locomotives for general service. The naysayers always come out in force, telling us all in great detail why it will never ever happen. It seems to me that some people are never happy unless everyone else is sad just like them.
Or it could be that there are forum members that actually work in the railroad industry and have experience as to what works and what doesn't.
Railfans that view the modern railroad industry as existing mainly to entertain them crack me up, if they had their way there would be nothing but tourist and museum railroads....
Steam engines have a thermal efficiency of about 10%, coal fired power plants up to 40%, which is achived by a huge amount of heat recovery, water chemistry and tremendous higher pressures und temperatures of the steam. There is no way to implement these features in a moving vehicle with limited cross sectional area. In germany in the 1930s there have been attempts to improve the eficiency of steam locos e.g. by raising the pressure, but all attemps failed for several reasons The swiss engineers got the same result with their ex german Kriegslok type 52. Using oil instead of coal only has the advantage to reduce the fireman's burden, nothing else.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.