A Travel Air 2000 biplane made the world’s first piloted flight under steam power over Oakland, California, on 12 April 1933. The strangest feature of the flight was its relative silence; spectators on the ground could hear the pilot when he called to them from mid-air. The aircraft, piloted by William Besler, had been fitted with a two-cylinder, 150 hp reciprocating engine. An important contribution to its design was made by Nathan C. Price, a former Doble Steam Motors engineer. Price was working on high pressure compact engines for rail and road transport; the purpose of the flight was to obtain publicity for this work. Following its unexpectedly favourable reception Price went to Boeing and worked on various aviation projects, but Boeing dropped the idea of a steam aeroengine in 1936. Price later worked for Lockheed where his experience with developing compact burners for steam boilers helped to design Lockheed’s first jet engine. The advantages of the “Besler System” that were claimed at the time included the elimination of audible noise and destructive vibration; greater efficiency at low engine speeds and also at high altitudes where lower air temperatures assisted condensation; reduced likelihood of engine failure; reduced maintenance costs; reduced fuel costs, since fuel oil was used in place of petrol; reduced fire hazard since the fuel was less volatile and operating temperatures were lower; and a lack of need for radio shielding. For capacities in excess of …
Featured Content
Discover the Amazing Natural Wonder of Galapagos Islands with Galapagos Cruises
As we know the weekend season will be arrive soon. Yes, the New Year... read more
Refreshing Holiday Vacation at Hilton Head South Carolina
In this busy work time like today, most people usually have spend most of their... read more
if that technology would have been more advanced it propably would have been a good reconnaissance aircraft. Or how do you want to shoot something down you cant even hear?
…hmmm it was engineer dream.. just to forget every weight/power ratio and range concerns
That’s how nuclear power usually works.
The turbine is coupled to a big alternator…
Actually both soviet and the US were developing nuclear powered aircraft back on the day. There’s a video about it here on youtube.
is this even practical? i mean, so much weight from the water and the boiler? how?
ITS REALLY COOL THOUGH!
i was thinking the same thing i was reading about they develope a steam turbo prop wich over powered the aircraft and posibly damaging it. all you need for a condenser is a vacuum system right at the tail of the exaust. the ambiant air and air up above will siplyfy the condening process with out using heavy macheanery.
Very cool. Was this the first time that reverse thrust was demonstrated on an aircraft?
The song is “Sunday” by Bix Beiderbecke.
SOMEONE TELL ME THIS SONG.
You probably could get away with a nuclear powered steam engine, as long as you have a condenser to trap the now irradiated waste steam. And instead of a reciprocating engine, why not a turbine?
Just one point though, you’d have to run a nuclear engine almost constantly, because the reaction never totally stops.
Amazing. Simply awesome! Sure it might not be as practical as a petrol engine, but …and I’m just saying… what if you could use a nuclear energy source in a very small scale to replace the “fire box” and focus the energy on that coil?
Am I too far off thinking that you could have a reactor powered rotary aircraft?
All credit goes to Basler brothers
Which band is playing?
How long could that stay up for? It must have used a lot of water and fuel.
That was cool. Gonna have to send this to the Bro, retired AF.
I love it. Unbelievable!!! Amazing!!! Thanks so much for posting.
wow behaves like and electric motor,ahh,,, how much water did you have to carrie on top of the fuel ,,, or was regenerative and reinjected the water, although it looks like it was venting it out,, power to weight ratio??? I dont’ think it can surpass the otto engine.
music ?
Facinating!
So what might have been the fuel ‘burn’ rate if using a liquid combustable compared to a slower burning but higher calorific value solid fuel? – Also compared to burning a liquid fuel in typical combustion engine?
If it is ‘low’ I wonder why there is no modern equivalent? Or is there?
All good stuff
Any thing that was liquid and can be pumped works. In the 1930′s kerosene or gasoline would have been used. The fire box is on top with a large capacity fan powered burner blowing the flame down through about 500 ft of coiled up heavy wall tubing. The tubing holds very little water and relied on a quartz rod thermostat analogue control to match water feed, steam temp, and stream pressure to the engine usage
Fizzguts.. thank you for this interesting bit of info!
Would you know what type of fuel was burned to heat the water so relatively quickly?
Many thanks
thanks for posting so quick (-:
About 60 seconds from dead cold. Very fast heat up Doble style monotube boiler.
I respect and admire the work of the Besslers and the Doble brothers.
To have silly nonsense information posted by someone who has a half arsed memory of a magazine from 40 or 50 years ago and then will not retract or apologize PISSES ME OFF.
If you enjoy misinformation, nonsense and woo you probably have a different attitude.
Me? It makes me want to scream
Ever cared about the video creator??
HES the person who has to look at ur personal conflicts in his mailbox everytime,he logs in(although it could be quite interesting)
Tell me,why do u hate rickd248 so much?