Interesting on the sense that crazy and retarded ufology is interesting? I just want to point that in alternate history, you have the word "history", and no place for aliens outside ASB.
Renaissance flying machines?
- Thread starter Voleur Inconnu
- Start date
Interesting on the sense that crazy and retarded ufology is interesting? I just want to point that in alternate history, you have the word "history", and no place for aliens outside ASB.
Since you are new here, I will assume this is an innocent error.
Don't just link, especially to this sort of site without adding content.
CalBear in Mod Mode.
What, that he was put under house arrest and his book, which was highly provocative, basically calling the Pope a simpleton, was banned? That was stupid on the part of the Church, I agree, but not anything like what you seem to be suggesting.
Galileo's biggest problem wasn't the heliocentric view, it was that he was a stupid git. He gets told 'be careful' and then goes and publishes a book that's a strawman argument between a sensible person and an idiot who's even called 'Simplicio' (simpleton), and who is used as a mouth piece for several statements the Pope had made.
Up to that point, the Pope had SUPPORTED him.
And as Carlton Bach pointed out, flight doesn't disagree with Scripture, which Heliocentrism does (in a strictly literal reading). (Funny how even the most literalist of Fundamentalists don't take that issue up along with homosexuality...)
If I ever become Pope, that will be my first decree.
But on a more serious note, how early do you think that practical flying machines would appear? As SRT said, there would probably be exploration into airships much sooner, and potentially a 1700's steam airship. And as I believe I mentioned earlier, perhaps a gunpowder engine would have been developed in the mid 1600's, as Christiaan Huygens made attempts to develop one in 1673. In OTL it never worked, but if there is some manned flight already, I'd imagine an application to a gunpowder engine might lead to motivation and maybe even funding.
And rocket powered paratroopers during the renaissance. That's got to be one of the most bizarre outcomes imaginable. But I've got to admit, if someone came up with the idea and implemented it, that would be way better than a siege engine. It would probably have a failure rate of unimaginable proportions, but the sight of seeing a couple hundred men suddenly fly up into the air and land inside your walls would probably negate the effects of a couple of them exploding or crashing through buildings. Besides, as long as one of them can open the gate, I guess it doesn't really matter if a couple don't work properly.
It is almost impossible to imagine a functional dirigible much earlier than OLT, even if the potential of lighter-than-air flight was realized by hot air and hydrogen filled balloons in the rennaissance. I doubt an engine (or engines) light enough to be used in an airship and powerful enough to propel it would be possible before light alloys and internal combustion. The following innovations are more likely:
rocket propelled glide bombs
Use of balloons and man-carrying tethered kites for observation
"Paratroopers" carried aloft by kites and balloons when wind directions were favorable - ditto bombs
My style sense says hell, yeah, but the maths say no. You can't put out enough power (even discounting efficiency losses, which would be huge on a Renaissance transmission) to overcome the air resistance of a sufficiently large gasbag in any kind of wind.
There are applications for a tethered balloon. Probably more than we can think of. But the technology isn't likely to go farther. Think of diving - there was basic diving technology for millennia, and it served a purpose, though a limited one. But it wasn't until the 19th century that tech advanced enough to let it get out of that envelope. Flight is going to be similar: ages of smart peoiple idly doodling ideas how to make it perform, and then the necessary ingredients arrive.
It also provides an orientation point for anyone in your army that can see it.
I was thinking about this thread earlier and was wondering, could pedal power or a hand crancked mechanism not just turn the propellor, but accelerate it aswell? I dont really know how to explain it but an example of what i mean is when you put an elastic band around a pencil, hook it over your finger and then it spins extremely fast? It is apparently used alot in model aeroplanes.
But yeah. Anyone know what im talking about?
The problem with the "rubber band" analogy is that it creates a sudden burst of power and then stops. I suppose you could mount a series of such spring-loaded props in a gondola, each with a crew to wind and release them in such a way that one prop is always spinning. But then you are talking about lifting a heavy load - which requires a very large gasbag - which then needs even more power. Even early 1900's airships like Santos Dumont's could barely manage 10-20mph with gasoline engines, makng them pretty much useless in any contrary winds.
As much as I'd like to imagine 17th century airships with hand-cranked or bicycle pedalled propellors, I just don't think its possible.
As much as I'd like to imagine 17th century airships with hand-cranked or bicycle pedalled propellors, I just don't think its possible.
The ananlogy was awful, i cant remember the name
But isnt there some way you can have either pedal or hand power that dont simply turn the prop, but accelerate it?
Sure, in the same way bicycle transmissions can accelerate the wheel. Try to imagine yourself pedalling on a contraption that accelerates two 2 meter diameter propellors (one on each side of the gomdola) to a sufficient speed to create enough thrust to push a several ton airship thru the resistant sky (remember, even though the gas makes it weightless, it still has all that mass wind resistance,and inertia). You'd be exhausted after only a few minutes if you didn't die first.
I think I do. The problem really is this: a worthwhile airship is going to havve to be large. Even to just fly three or four people plus luggage requires a gasbag the size of a semi-detached house. This thing is effectively weightless, which means it is relatiovely easy to move. A propeller or wing mechanism can do it almost effortlessly. But so can the wind. Have you ever ridden a bicycle into a consistent headwind? Even at Beaufort 3 or 4, it gets tiresome very quickly. That's just you catching the airflow. Imagine the pressure on something the size of a sail. No matter how good your transmission is, you can't beat that with human power. A hand.powered airship is going to be strictly fair-weather flying.
Sorry, it seems more like a suicide unit.
We´re talking about the Renaissance here, right?
If you want a rocket that is reasonably reliable and flying (reasonably) straight you need two things:
- a propellant (gunpowder in this case) that´s reasonably consistent and evenly mixed
- an exhaust nozzle that´s reasonably "even" (circular or whatever)
If the exhaust nozzle is even a bit uneven, the rocket won´t fly straight. That´s still good enough if you want to hit an area. But it´s a real problem with one or several of them propelling a rocket glider.
And it´s the same with gunpowder. If the gunpowder isn´t evenly mixed then some parts (volume) of it will burn faster than others. Meaning the rocket won´t fly exactly straight. Still good enough to hit a general area.
Now imagine the size of the gun-powder rockets (plural!) needed to transport a fully armed soldier. And both of the problems I mentioned above just became larger with bigger rockets needed.
(In a sense that´s the difference between rockets certified to carry a satellite and rockets certified for manned space flight today.)
A few will just "fizzle", a few will explode on the ground. The majority might have "ignition and lift-off".
But then - because of poor gun-powder quality and exhausts - the rockets will start to pull in slightly different directions. Which means that most of the Renaissance rocket gliders (made out of wood) will simply self-destruct once in the air. Once the rocket(s) left on the glider decide to go in a slightly different direction than the rocket(s) right on the glider wing.
You´d be lucky if even 10% of the rocket gliders reach your target.
(I´m not even mentioning that rockets would expose Renaissance soldiers to accelerations - g-forces - unknown to them.)
It might provide entertainment for the besieged town or fortress though.
Some spectacular fireworks in the enemy camp. Some simply exploding, others not getting airborne but plowing through the enemy camp? Lots of enemy soldiers falling from the sky once their glider disintegrate. Maybe even some early aerobatics? Loopings or such?
I´m afraid the mercenary soldiers used in a lot of Renaissance wars might not volunteer for the job? They weren´t afraid of dying in a battle. But they might object to an 80-90% casualty rate just trying to use rocket gliders?