creepycrank Boeing ( and Lockheed and Douglas) had a long history of successful pressurized cabin propeller driven airplanes before the Comet. Boeing started with the 307 Stratoliner of 1940, of course the B29 cabin was pressurize and the 377 Stratocruiser based on the B29 did also. After the war both Covair and Martin produced twin engine planes with pressurization so I would think that the details of how to do it would have been in all the trade journals. Its very likely that everyone went over all their design theories after the Comet disasters just in case they missed something. I think that the British rushed to whole thing forward to leapfrog the American trans-Atlantic prop jobs. I also think that the 707 and the DC8 had to wait for development of a suitable engine for the size they thought that would be required. I think it was 1956 or 57 when airplanes first carried more passengers than ocean liners so a bigger plane was called for.
Boeing ( and Lockheed and Douglas) had a long history of successful pressurized cabin propeller driven airplanes before the Comet. Boeing started with the 307 Stratoliner of 1940, of course the B29 cabin was pressurize and the 377 Stratocruiser based on the B29 did also. After the war both Covair and Martin produced twin engine planes with pressurization so I would think that the details of how to do it would have been in all the trade journals. Its very likely that everyone went over all their design theories after the Comet disasters just in case they missed something. I think that the British rushed to whole thing forward to leapfrog the American trans-Atlantic prop jobs. I also think that the 707 and the DC8 had to wait for development of a suitable engine for the size they thought that would be required. I think it was 1956 or 57 when airplanes first carried more passengers than ocean liners so a bigger plane was called for.
I was watching a program on the 707 on the History Channel not too long ago. According to the program, Boeing originally designed the aircraft as a new generation Air Force transport, which ultimately became the KC-135.
Boeing actually took a gamble, according to the program and also designed the aircraft for commercial use.
And as they say..."the rest is history."
On a side note: 1960 marks a pivotal year in trans-Atlantic travel. That was the first year in which airline travel surpassed that of ocean liner travel.
Juniatha,
I see your reasoning about the gas turbine as it applies to a high performance super sports car. I misunderstood you to be talking about small fuel-efficient cars, whereas this would be just another hybrid, but with a turbine engine.
Actually, I like the smell of certain diesels, but that smell can vary. The worst thing in the world is inhaling diesel exhaust from a diesel in cold weather when it has not yet warmed up. That exhaust is a white, wet vapor of various exhaust components and unburned fuel. That can leave a person gasping and hacking for air. And if that kind of cold diesel exhaust happens to waft into your house, the smell hangs around for a couple days. It is basically fuel oil deposited everywhere in the house. Heavy diesel black smoke from turbo lag does not smell very good, but it is not like the killer white cold smoke. I always thought EMD locomotives made a very sweet and agreeable smelling smoke. I remember that agreeable diesel smell when passing between cars on passenger trains.
Regarding changing the public perception of diesels: I was referring to changing the diesel engines first to create the high mileage, super fuel-efficient compact diesels for the future, and then showing those to the public. Assuming that these super diesels would not be smoky, noisy, heavy, clunky, etc., I think the public would accept them, especially if they outperformed everything on fuel consumption per pound of vehicle.
As IGN mentioned on the previous page, GM came out with diesels for full size cars in the 1980s, and that probably had much to do with the public’s perception of diesels today. Those GM diesels were indeed noisy, clunky, smoky, smelly, leaky, heavy, sluggish, and hard to start in cold weather. Moreover, since they were made with gas engine blocks, they did not have that wonderful engine longevity that a typical diesel has. In addition to all the aforementioned bad attributes, the GM diesels were short-lived maintenance hogs.
And within this topic of energy-efficient cars, I am most amazed by what is happening with the Chevy Volt. A year ago, a friend was telling me they would have fire and explosion issues with the Volt battery. Why couldn’t GM see this coming? Actually that is a rhetorical question.
New Motor Trend magazine has an article of the performance of a large group of "Volt" Chevy's. Mostly possitive, and uplifting and with great effective "mpg" figures....
This latest report of battery fire concerns possible in an accident, is something that will have to be attended to.
I've wondered about that too, but not with just an accident, perhaps some {electronic}, malfunction while in an attached garage....
Hopefully, if these concerns are true, they can solve the problem.
Quentin
Modelcar New Motor Trend magazine has an article of the performance of a large group of "Volt" Chevy's. Mostly possitive, and uplifting and with great effective "mpg" figures.... This latest report of battery fire concerns possible in an accident, is something that will have to be attended to. I've wondered about that too, but not with just an accident, perhaps some {electronic}, malfunction while in an attached garage.... Hopefully, if these concerns are true, they can solve the problem.
Quentin, regarding the Chevy Volt, I saw this in the NY Times yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/business/gm-offers-to-buy-back-volts-over-fire-risk.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles
Ironically...they also carried this story:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/with-an-asterisk-chevrolet-volt-tops-consumer-reports-owner-satisfaction-survey/?ref=automobiles
Hi IGN Sure , diesels have been made a lot cleaner with incessant progress in fuel injection and combustion . The smoke I mentioned produced by Mercedes cars was by E-class cars of 124 and 210 series with , I think , 2.2 ltr diesel four cylinder engines in built during the late 1990s . About natural gas in trucking: At the Mid-American truck show 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5-gmM5UaW0&feature=related Andy Douglas , sales manager of Kenworth Truck Company on LNG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLchLn8zENw Trucker Desiree Wood on CNG an LNG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07K8XkZA-L8 Trucker Desiree Wood on natural gas in trucking Hi Paul Checking the videos I saw one with a little sound (obviously the recording level was very much reduced since the turbine didn’t sound that loud but the diesel following wasn’t to be heard or scarcely . This must have been a rather initial machine , gee , running a gas turbine on heavy bunker oil … (that’s fine with firing a steam loco’s boiler) Cat : thanx , Paul . Hi Firelock Eddie Rickenbacker saw cabin walls flexing – wow ! the Brits kept smiling , nothing to be concerned about ? sure not : it works , or – you’ll never have to be concerned about anything again ! I need to find more information about Comet 4 design . BOAC , I think then a national airline , kept flying the redesigned Comet aircraft . Btw – ‘Comet’ … and then short lived career with planes falling from sky … hm--- Oh , and since we’re speaking of turbine-electrics : From sources sometimes uniquely interpreting or slightly distorting information I have gathered , plans for full-length electrification of air transport have so far not reached beyond theoretical papers held at conferences : (a) – a scheme for over-head wiring at 40.000 ft altitude , put up by one redoubtable commercial futurologist bureau has been declined because of – .. sorry ? uhm , wiring was suggested to be hung from geo-static satellites .. – no , because of doubts planes could be made to climb to 40.000 ft on batteries alone ; (b) – third rail electrified planes only seem to come anywhere near to realization in short distance air travel where high-altitude flying is planned be replaced by extremely low flying , possibly even using ground-effect with Ekranoplan type of aircraft , thereby it will become unnecessary to practice excessively steep climbing only to reach flying altitude just before descending again for landing . (c) – an earlier suggestion by one European committee for the encouragement of electrical air transport to use cables to be provided by airports directly connecting planes to power plants came to nothing because France and Germany could not agree on electric system to be used while Belgian politicians , at least one or the other side of the them , insisted on keeping their own national system that they had already started to plan on . Anyways the system seemed somewhat difficult to use in Trans-Atlantic or Trans-Continental flight because of unsolved question of owner rights against national rights in regions where the cable will inevitably come down on earth behind the passed airplane . Also , question whether to keep unwinder stationary with airports as provider or have airplanes carry light weight unwinders on board saw two leagues who would rather go down fighting each other than see the ‘other’ electrification realized . It’s totally untrue , though , budget airlines were planning on introducing rotary radial rowing airplanes where passengers depending on class will be offered a chance to do some work for getting there – although at first glance the idea would appear to have some sense of justice about it . On the other hand , recently I thought I saw a shop at one airport that sold little , nicely labeled bottles of Lone Star Kerosene , Kérosène Rive Gauche (rouge ou blanche) , Desert Brand and Down-Under or Kiwi Kerosene . It’s said , certain airlines in financially , uhm , somewhat austere conditions welcome it as a thoughtful gesture by passengers to bring it along when checking in . Aeroscrap International have lately released a note to the press , declaring , that case of the PF drinking it was an isolated one and the circumstances are still being investigated ! Regards
Hi IGN
Sure , diesels have been made a lot cleaner with incessant progress in fuel injection and combustion . The smoke I mentioned produced by Mercedes cars was by E-class cars of 124 and 210 series with , I think , 2.2 ltr diesel four cylinder engines in built during the late 1990s .
About natural gas in trucking:
At the Mid-American truck show 2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5-gmM5UaW0&feature=related
Andy Douglas , sales manager of Kenworth Truck Company on LNG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLchLn8zENw
Trucker Desiree Wood on CNG an LNG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07K8XkZA-L8
Trucker Desiree Wood on natural gas in trucking
Hi Paul
Checking the videos I saw one with a little sound (obviously the recording level was very much reduced since the turbine didn’t sound that loud but the diesel following wasn’t to be heard or scarcely .
This must have been a rather initial machine , gee , running a gas turbine on heavy bunker oil … (that’s fine with firing a steam loco’s boiler)
Cat : thanx , Paul .
Hi Firelock
Eddie Rickenbacker saw cabin walls flexing – wow ! the Brits kept smiling , nothing to be concerned about ? sure not : it works , or – you’ll never have to be concerned about anything again !
I need to find more information about Comet 4 design . BOAC , I think then a national airline , kept flying the redesigned Comet aircraft .
Btw – ‘Comet’ … and then short lived career with planes falling from sky … hm---
Oh , and since we’re speaking of turbine-electrics :
From sources sometimes uniquely interpreting or slightly distorting information I have gathered , plans for full-length electrification of air transport have so far not reached beyond theoretical papers held at conferences :
(a) – a scheme for over-head wiring at 40.000 ft altitude , put up by one redoubtable commercial futurologist bureau has been declined because of –
.. sorry ? uhm , wiring was suggested to be hung from geo-static satellites ..
– no , because of doubts planes could be made to climb to 40.000 ft on batteries alone ;
(b) – third rail electrified planes only seem to come anywhere near to realization in short distance air travel where high-altitude flying is planned be replaced by extremely low flying , possibly even using ground-effect with Ekranoplan type of aircraft , thereby it will become unnecessary to practice excessively steep climbing only to reach flying altitude just before descending again for landing .
(c) – an earlier suggestion by one European committee for the encouragement of electrical air transport to use cables to be provided by airports directly connecting planes to power plants came to nothing because France and Germany could not agree on electric system to be used while Belgian politicians , at least one or the other side of the them , insisted on keeping their own national system that they had already started to plan on . Anyways the system seemed somewhat difficult to use in Trans-Atlantic or Trans-Continental flight because of unsolved question of owner rights against national rights in regions where the cable will inevitably come down on earth behind the passed airplane . Also , question whether to keep unwinder stationary with airports as provider or have airplanes carry light weight unwinders on board saw two leagues who would rather go down fighting each other than see the ‘other’ electrification realized .
It’s totally untrue , though , budget airlines were planning on introducing rotary radial rowing airplanes where passengers depending on class will be offered a chance to do some work for getting there – although at first glance the idea would appear to have some sense of justice about it .
On the other hand , recently I thought I saw a shop at one airport that sold little , nicely labeled bottles of Lone Star Kerosene , Kérosène Rive Gauche (rouge ou blanche) , Desert Brand and Down-Under or Kiwi Kerosene . It’s said , certain airlines in financially , uhm , somewhat austere conditions welcome it as a thoughtful gesture by passengers to bring it along when checking in . Aeroscrap International have lately released a note to the press , declaring , that case of the PF drinking it was an isolated one and the circumstances are still being investigated !
Regards
Juniatha
add to IGN
Personally I don't so muchlike the concept of hybrids - it's a lot of extra complication and it makes a car have two´very different characters .
Juniatha: If you want to build a high performance hybred put a bigger engine in it. IE if you need 200 hp for propulsion put a 300 hp engine in. If you are not running it all the time rearrange the charging cycle. The idea is like a turbocharged gas engine leaving the waste gate open when you don't need to use the turbo but having all the extra power when needed or desired.
Also regarding the video on Pan Am: Viva la Blue Meat Ball!
Thx IGN
Murray Quentin, regarding the Chevy Volt, I saw this in the NY Times yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/business/gm-offers-to-buy-back-volts-over-fire-risk.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles
This battery fire problem is a fast moving story. Right now, they are offering to buy the cars back from the purchasers. I predict that within days, they will permanently recall all of the Volts sold and refund the purchase price to everyone who bought one. A lot more engineering and redesign needs to be done.
Just a quick "back atcha" Juniatha. The DeHaviland Comet survives today as the Royal Air Forces "Nimrod" anti-submarine patrol aircraft. Mind you, it looks like a Comet that's spent some time at the gym getting pumped up, but it's the Comet just the same.
This latest reported battery problem {fire}, with the Volt might spin into a real GM problem.
They must have many hundreds of millions of dollars in the development of this very complicated power train.
And I've read recently Cadillac is involved in a possible vehicle with this power train.
I'm sure these types of powertrain designs can be engineered to produce good {great}, fuel economy. But, I wonder if all the complications and expense of doing so is really necessary for the bulk of automotive transportation in the future.
Do we need to make a vehicle to move from point A to point B so expensive and {very}, complicated. We {U. S. Auto industry}, have the ability now...to produce good performing vehicles, and still record a very decent fuel consumption. And keep the complication {relatively}, less so.
While the subject of hybrid cars has come up there's one thing I'd like to know: All the descriptions of hybrids no matter who makes them makes me think every one of them's over-engineered. Battery packs, power generation through the brake system, et al. Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to have a small gasoline engine turning a generator at a constant rate and feeding the power to an electric motor through a rheostat, or something similar? Maybe someone can explain it to me.
I have heard that the Volt is way over the top with computerized electronics. The engineers could not overcome the laws of physics with driving range, so they compensated for that shortcoming by over-engineering everything else in sight (with the exception of the battery).
One problem with the Volt is heating the passenger cabin in the winter. I have heard that cold weather operation with some heating brings the driving range down into the mid-20-mile range. They advise to not use the heater much. They say the car can be heated at night during the charge cycle. And we all know that once you get a car heated up, you can drive around with the heat off and feel just fine.
But while the battery range is very short, the gas engine range is something like 300 miles. I would speculate that most Volts will end up being driven around in the gas mode all the time with the battery left uncharged. Then the driver will be paying to haul around the 500-pound battery all the time for no purpose.
Firelock76; does the latest version of the Nimrod still have the big ( W.C. Fields) bulbnose?? The Nimrod has served R.A.F. well for many years.
Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Firelock76 While the subject of hybrid cars has come up there's one thing I'd like to know: All the descriptions of hybrids no matter who makes them makes me think every one of them's over-engineered. Battery packs, power generation through the brake system, et al. Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to have a small gasoline engine turning a generator at a constant rate and feeding the power to an electric motor through a rheostat, or something similar? Maybe someone can explain it to me.
switch7frg Firelock76; does the latest version of the Nimrod still have the big ( W.C. Fields) bulbnose?? The Nimrod has served R.A.F. well for many years. Cannonball
There is also an AEW version of the Nimrod. It is the one with the big nose. The RAF version of AWACS.
Not sure if they are still flying. THX IGN
I'm not sure if Nimrods are still flying, I'll have to do some lookin' on line.
OK, did a search for the Nimrod on Wikepedia. The last flights were in March of 2010. I won't take too much time with the whole story, but search Hawker-Siddeley Nimrod, the Wiki article tells the tale.
My initial thoughts for an electric transmission for gas turbine engines goes back a ways. A few years back when the Green Goat & Green Kid switchers wer being formulated it kind of reminded me.
Originally they were thinking about using either a 50 or 100 hp micro turbine. Theses were the original impetus for the current generation of Diesel-Battery-Electrics. With the newest generation using very conventional diesel generator sets.(up to four I think) for recharging batteries.
PS With regards to LNG or CNG for heavy trucks.
The main problem for CNG or LNG is one of distribution. The CNG & LNG trucks and busses now on the road in the US are vehicles that return to there point of origin (ie a fixed base or depot) every nite. Most of the over the road trucks get fuel at truck stops. It is a case of no one will buy the trucks unless they know they can get the fuel. And because no one is buying the fuel(CNG/LNG) truck stops do not want to put in the pumps.
With DEF initially it was being sold in 1 gallon boxes. As the demand increased now it can be gotten at the pump instead.
By the by electric airplanes powered off of geo stationary satelites? Is that a new version of "FLY BY WIRE"?
The NB-36H was a modified Convair B-36 Peacekeeper that was used as a testbed for an American nuclear powered bomber.
http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm
Go for the nukes. The reactor worked on a plane. Make it work on a train, or a truck.
....Interesting article using the B-36 as test bed..{modified}.
I can say, having witnessed seeing and hearing the {production}, B-36 fly back in the late '40s...One could recognize one as soon as it could be heard. They made a low rumbling, pulsing sound as it passed. Supposed it was the 6 engines that helped to produce the different sound. Believe the jet engines were needed only for heavy take off.
An exciting airplane to see....It seemed to be sort of an oddball, and not seen much, and when one did see and hear one, it was attention getting right away.
Had an opportunity to look at one close up many years ago over at Wright Patterson Air Force Base museum. A very {unusual}, impressive appearing airplane. If I remember correctly, it flew in to that location for it's final flight.
Quentin; you are right , W.P.A.F.B. was home to a couple of the big birds. Patterson field as it was known then had a runway long enough for takeoff. That big bird made windows and dishes rattle. At the end of the field there is a ridge line there is a ridge line to the west that was over flown , that was quite an event for the neighborhood when one flew over. The B-36 was a S.A.C. plane before the B-47 came online. The other event was when the B-36 was moved over the highway in pieces to the meusem. Wright field was the developement test center for many years. My folks and I lived across the road from there in my young years .
Size of airplane vs size of runway brings back memories of the B-52's at Chanute AFB in Illinois (hard by the "Mainline of Mid-America").
Chanute was home for B-52 aircraft mechanics. There were several on the base, and they'll never fly out. Not because they've been stripped, etc (although that's likely true), but because the runways are too short (5000 ft) for them to take off. As I understand it, at least one overshot the runway when it landed.
IIRC, there were at least three "Buffs" on Chanute, including one in the hangar for training.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Did you know developement started on the B-36 in 1940? The Army Air Force was looking for a bomber that could hit European targets from the continental US and return. They were concerned about what to do if Britain fell and we wound up fighting Hitler with no friends in Europe at all. The first one flew in 1946. By the way, that Jimmy Stewart film "Strategic Air Command" has some magnificent footage of B-36's both flying and on the ground. A real visual treat!
Firelock76 Did you know developement started on the B-36 in 1940? The Army Air Force was looking for a bomber that could hit European targets from the continental US and return. They were concerned about what to do if Britain fell and we wound up fighting Hitler with no friends in Europe at all. The first one flew in 1946. By the way, that Jimmy Stewart film "Strategic Air Command" has some magnificent footage of B-36's both flying and on the ground. A real visual treat!
You are so correct....Some time ago I saw that movie on TV, and marveled at the excellent photos {all kinds of views}, of the great B-36
Chevy Volt news of interest from the NY Times:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/bmw-and-g-m-discuss-collaboration-on-advanced-technologies-including-fuel-cells/?ref=automobiles
More collectable cars of interest:
http://collectiblecars.nytimes.com/View_Listing.asp?ListingID=COL702041&From=F
Always fun to look at the automotive stuff Murray.
"Investigation of Chevy Volt Prompts Opel to Delay Sales of Ampera"
From the NY Times:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/investigation-of-chevy-volt-prompts-opel-to-delay-sales-of-ampera/?ref=automobiles
The new Buick Verano:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/automobiles/autoreviews/testing-the-waters-with-a-smaller-vessel.html?ref=automobiles
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/group-therapy-tell-us-your-pinto-vega-and-gremlin-stories/?ref=automobiles
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.