| Who | When |
Messages | |
|
|
|
| |
Messages 46-43 deleted by topic administrator between 06-30-2008 02:29 AM and 02-22-2008 04:18 PM |
| Aleigha
|
42
|
 |
|
07-22-2006 03:43 AM ET (US)
|
|
|
| |
Messages 41-38 deleted by topic administrator between 07-23-2006 02:04 AM and 07-22-2006 09:27 AM |
| Heather
|
37
|
 |
|
07-18-2006 12:14 AM ET (US)
|
|
|
| Christine
|
36
|
 |
|
07-18-2006 12:14 AM ET (US)
|
|
|
| Chris Williams
|
35
|
 |
|
04-06-2004 12:01 PM ET (US)
|
|
Line two of The Mighty Warlitza: 'Luckily, it was only painted on, as an inept attempt at psychological warfare. Unfortunately, I was behind the cinema organ, they're a bitch to overtake at the best of times.'
|
| The Baron
|
34
|
 |
|
04-06-2004 07:08 AM ET (US)
|
|
Wow, it's Gamma-powered. Hulktastic!
|
| Fred Kiesche
|
33
|
 |
|
04-06-2004 06:01 AM ET (US)
|
|
|
Charlie Stross
|
32
|
 |
|
04-04-2004 07:21 AM ET (US)
|
|
Waves hand in air: me too. (I now have to write a story that begins, "A two thousand ton afterburning cinema organ is a terrifying thing to see in your rear-view mirror ...")
|
| Chris Williams
|
31
|
 |
|
04-02-2004 05:29 AM ET (US)
|
|
OK - who else read that name as 'Warlitza'? There's a terrifying subtext of the Goon Show 'The Mighty Wurlitzer' [in which Neddie attempts to break the Land Speed Record for cinema organs] here.
|
| The Baron
|
30
|
 |
|
03-30-2004 07:27 AM ET (US)
|
|
|
| Dave english
|
29
|
 |
|
03-15-2004 10:54 AM ET (US)
|
|
Thats the name of it! steambird! Most amusing read, very fifties style. I was suprised to discover pluto was real after reading about it in charles story. What a nightmare idea!
|
| Arthur Wyatt
|
28
|
 |
|
03-09-2004 09:34 AM ET (US)
|
|
|
| Ric Davis
|
27
|
 |
|
03-04-2004 05:04 PM ET (US)
|
|
I'd heard of the US programme, but not the Tu-95. There's also :Steam Bird:, sf by Hilbert Schenk describing a nuclear heated steam powered bomber.
|
| Fred Kiesche
|
26
|
 |
|
03-04-2004 03:29 PM ET (US)
|
|
|
Charlie Stross
|
25
|
 |
|
03-04-2004 12:21 PM ET (US)
|
|
The reactor shielding was indeed heavy -- but the trick the US project used was to interpose shielding between the crew and the reactor, leaving all other angles unshielded. That way, they could get away with only about 20 tons of shielding which, on something the size of the proposed B-60, was trivial. (While on the ground with the reactors sub-critical shielding would be less of an issue.)
The Russians flew a modified Tu-95 Bear with the two inner turboprops running off a reactor in the bomb bay -- but without any shielding. Apparently two of the test crew are still alive, although most of them died of cancer within only a few years of the test program.
What really killed the nuclear-powered bomber was the ICBM, which was cheaper and more efficient. (I'm researching this stuff for a possible SF novel in which ICBMs -- and spacecraft in general -- simply Don't Work, for reasons involving alien intervention, Big Dumb Objects, and other space operatic toys.)
|
| Fred Kiesche
|
24
|
 |
|
03-03-2004 06:45 PM ET (US)
|
|
I don't believe that the nuclear-powered bomber was killed by the treaty that killed the Orion "boom-boom" ship. It was more than likely the fact that the atomic pile is a pretty heavy thing. In a submarine, you've got some assistance (water) in supporting your vehicle. But I'll bet the amount of power vs. weight of the pile/shielding didnt' work out.
It'll be interesting to see if the ships in "Sky Captains" (out later this year) are atomic powered...
|
| Arthur Wyatt
|
23
|
 |
|
03-03-2004 06:18 AM ET (US)
|
|
Interesting. Was the nuclar powered bomber concept killed by the same treaty that killed Project Orion?
|
Dop
|
22
|
 |
|
03-03-2004 04:16 AM ET (US)
|
|
I think at one point people thought that in the future, everything was going to run off atomic power.
I'm sure when I was a lad I had this book that explained how by the 1980s, even cars would run off atomic power. (but still look like clunky 1960s cars!)
|
| Dick Thompson
|
21
|
 |
|
03-02-2004 04:29 PM ET (US)
|
|
But don't forget that that atomic airplane played a crucial role in Gene Wolf's "Free, Live Free".
|
| Fred Kiesche
|
20
|
 |
|
03-02-2004 12:13 PM ET (US)
|
|
Well...let me know if you need additional resources, in terms of good websites to consult, books to check, and even a few people to chat with.
Come May, you can get Disney's "Tomorrowland" DVD including their version of the von Braun space program and more! That ought to be good for some inspiration!
|
Charlie Stross
|
19
|
 |
|
03-02-2004 11:19 AM ET (US)
|
|
Tony: hopefully not.
Fred: yes, it's preliminary research for something rather weird. But I won't even think about starting it until autumn -- got a fantasy novel to finish and then an SF novel to redraft first.
|
| TonyC
|
18
|
 |
|
03-02-2004 09:31 AM ET (US)
|
|
I gues I know what we'll be talking about in the pub tomorrow!
|
| Fred Kiesche
|
17
|
 |
|
03-02-2004 08:14 AM ET (US)
|
|
"Dieselpunk"?
I must have missed that one. I still like some "steampunk".
Given the past two postings, do I detect a future novel in the works? I hope you are checking the "Man Conquers Space" and "Deep Cold" websites as well as the Hobbyspace website for information...
|
Dop
|
16
|
 |
|
11-27-2003 06:28 AM ET (US)
|
|
That site appears to be having some problems at the moment.
The plane I was referring to had the top wing removed and the bottom wing replaced with a really huge wing that had cranked ends and extended back almost as far as the tail. It looked very odd, with inches of ground clearance below the back of the wing, But I can't find any other pictures of it for now.
|
| Brooks Moses
|
15
|
 |
|
11-26-2003 08:25 PM ET (US)
|
|
|
| Brooks Moses
|
14
|
 |
|
11-26-2003 06:52 PM ET (US)
|
|
Chris: Thanks for the recommendation; I just sent in an interlibrary-loan request for a copy. It seems the name would be "Setright", not "Setwright", though.
I also find myself thinking that it would make an excellent problem for the Thermodynamics class final that my advisor is working up -- he was wondering whether to do a piston-cylinder cycle problem or a continuous-flow cycle problem; clearly, the right answer is "both!"
|
Simon Bradshaw
|
13
|
 |
|
11-25-2003 06:04 PM ET (US)
|
|
I can just see it now... "Communist International Rescue", with the Trasiov brothers (Yuri, Gherman, Andrian, Pavel and Valeri) arriving in their amazing CIR machines at the scene of flood/fire/meltdown of decadent imperialist pressurized water reactor (so much less reliable than the Heroic Soviet Engineering RBMK design) to snatch grateful members of the proletariat from certain death...
|
| Ross Smith
|
12
|
 |
|
11-25-2003 02:30 PM ET (US)
|
|
|
Dop
|
11
|
 |
|
11-24-2003 11:35 AM ET (US)
|
|
Talking of odd Russian planes... The Antonov AN2 is a 12 passenger and cargo carrying biplane. The largest single-engined biplane in the world in fact. A plane for Real Men! This one has been, well, modified... http://www.airliners.net/open.file/415797/L/
|
| Monkeysam
|
10
|
 |
|
10-16-2003 11:28 AM ET (US)
|
|
Gary -- and a T.E. Lawrence reference for good measure I see.
|
| Chris Williams
|
9
|
 |
|
10-10-2003 06:49 AM ET (US)
|
|
Nice to see the Nomad getting some attention...
For the best lead-in to aero-engines, baroque or otherwise, check out a book (how low-tech is that?) by LK Setwright, called: 'The Power to Fly'. Setwright's love affair with the Napier company is apparent in the prose. Napier's designs, unlike the more utilitarian output of Bristol and RR, appear to have largely been dominated by the "Why are we arranging the cylinders like this? Because we _can_." principle.
|
| Gary Wilkinson
|
8
|
 |
|
10-07-2003 07:27 PM ET (US)
|
|
Look out for a Cthuloid tank in this week's 2000AD...
|
arthur wyatt
|
7
|
 |
|
10-07-2003 04:26 PM ET (US)
|
|
|
| David Bell
|
6
|
 |
|
10-07-2003 04:39 AM ET (US)
|
|
There are quite a few books on tanks between the wars. One I saw in the library was a recent reprint of a book from the late seventies, which tried to have photos of every tank up to 1945. Can't recall the title, but some weird stuff.
The Russians had some multi-turreted monsters.
At least three tanks were devised based on Caterpillar-style tractors, either as a cheap alternative for small countries, or as an expedient (New Zealand after Pearl Harbor).
There were a couple of American companies making and exporting tanks between the wars.
It doesn't cover stuff like the German assault guns, though it does deal with the many turretless tankettes that were tried pre-WW2.
|
| William Donohue
|
5
|
 |
|
10-06-2003 09:28 PM ET (US)
|
|
If you can lay hands on it, check Jane's Armoured Fighting Vehicles, specifically the Baker Jumping Car - my favorite WW II American experimental tank. I believe only one functional prototype was built, which worked perfectly. It was an articulated, wheeled car with massive springs and hydraulic assists on all wheels. Sadly, the Army wasn't interested, so nothing was ever done with the concept. On a side note, the net is strangely devoid of references to the Baker; all I could Google up were cites to print articles and patents.
|
arthur wyatt
|
4
|
 |
|
10-06-2003 08:42 PM ET (US)
|
|
The Independant is my favorite interwar tank design. I've no idea what the hell they were thinking when the designed this multi-turreted beast, except for possibly "The fuzzy-wuzzies won;t know what hit them". http://www.arthurwyatt.co.uk/images/photos/bov04.jpg
|
| David Bell
|
3
|
 |
|
10-06-2003 05:57 PM ET (US)
|
|
For alternate history freaks to think about:
The Suspension system used in the T-34 tank was the American Christie design, also used in some British cruiser tanks.
The engine in the T-34 was a development of a French V-8 aero engine (and a diesel).
The British 3-inch AA gun was shoved into a few tanks, such as the Churchill, as an anti-tank SP-gun.
So all the essential tech for the T-34 was available to Britain and France in 1940.
But don't forget the Covenanter, a cruiser tank that might have been quite decent, if the Consett steel plant had been able to make armour plate to specification. They all ended up being used in England for training.
Read the history, and thank God for the Sherman.
Even if it did catch fire too easily.
(Most of the Shermans with a Cat diesel engine went to Russia, and were shipped to Siberia to face the Japanese.)
(But it was the ammo storage that was the big fire problem.)
|
Charlie Stross
|
2
|
 |
|
10-05-2003 07:34 AM ET (US)
|
|
URL! URL! URL! Okay, see here. Eek. "The Nomad design was increadibly complex, essentially two engines in one. One was a supercharged Diesel similar to the Culverin. Below this was a complete turboprop engine, based on their Niaid design. The output of the turboprop was geared to a shaft running inside the Diesel's, driving the front propeller of a contra-rotating pair. As if that were not enough, during takeoff additional fuel was dumped into the rear turbine stage for additional power, and turned off once the plane was cruising." Wow.
|
| Chris Williams
|
1
|
 |
|
10-04-2003 06:39 PM ET (US)
|
|
Any self-respecting dieselpunk needs to take on board the Napier Nomad. Two stroke. Ten or so cylinders. With a turbocharger. And an afterburner. Stick that in yr Bristol Brabazon and smoke it.
|