Besler's steam-powered aircraft designs

Stargazer

ACCESS: USAP
Top Contributor
Joined
25 June 2009
Messages
14,102
Reaction score
4,194
You thought the Besler steam-engine biplane of 1933 (see next post) was wacky? Meet the 1954 Boundary Layer Control (BLC) aircraft project with FOUR steam engines!!

As the speed of airplanes has reached the point where they are hardly suitable for airport operation, future developments must be concerned with lower-speed takeoffs and landings, and shorter-field performance. Boundary-layer control of fixed-wing aircraft is a very promising method of achieving this goal in a rugged, uncomplicated air frame. A steam powerplant has some unique characteristics that are applicable to a boundary-layer control plane. The engines can be expected to be reliable and not subject to sudden cutout, ana the boilers through interconnection by small, light-weight pipes can supply their energy to either thrusting or lifting devices, or both. Therefore, the failure of one power generator would not cause undue concern or loss of control. It is the objective of this report to present the essentials of a powerplant system to furnish quiet, reliable, flexible, multi-fuel engine power for a boundary-layer control airplane.

Extreme latitude exists in a steam-powered airplane in the matter of component disposition. The engines may be placed in the wings or other outlying positions while the boilers with the auxiliaries consolidated in an engine roor, or the complete powerplant may be housed in the engine nacelle. Power can be diverted from thrusting engines to boundary-layer control engines to eliminate the necessity of providing separate sources of power generation. Other advantages will become apparent throughout the report.

Source: A STEAM POWERPLANT FOR AN AIRPLANE EQUIPPED WITH BOUNDARY-LAYER CONTROL (University of Wichita, September 1954)


[NOTE: attachment below is a composite picture of several diagrams in source document]
 

Attachments

  • Besler BLC airplane small.gif
    Besler BLC airplane small.gif
    80.6 KB · Views: 618
The 1933 Besler steam-powered biplane:
 

Attachments

  • powerplant.gif
    powerplant.gif
    52.5 KB · Views: 171
  • besler-rig.jpg
    besler-rig.jpg
    59.5 KB · Views: 93
  • besler2.jpg
    besler2.jpg
    65.4 KB · Views: 91
  • besler1.jpg
    besler1.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 93
  • besler.jpg
    besler.jpg
    27.8 KB · Views: 104
  • besler eng.jpg
    besler eng.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 334
  • besler bros.jpg
    besler bros.jpg
    33.3 KB · Views: 338
  • besclym2a.jpg
    besclym2a.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 340
  • bes engine 1.jpg
    bes engine 1.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 354
And an article:
 

Attachments

  • besler5.gif
    besler5.gif
    43.8 KB · Views: 91
  • besler4a.gif
    besler4a.gif
    34.5 KB · Views: 72
  • besler3.gif
    besler3.gif
    21.8 KB · Views: 70
  • besler2.gif
    besler2.gif
    44.1 KB · Views: 69
  • besler1.gif
    besler1.gif
    38.6 KB · Views: 108
There is film footage of the biplane at https://archive.org/details/BeslerCo1932

No reversible-pitch prop required!

Randy
 
I found this in Of Wings and Things Volume 1: 1972-1979 - Reprints from The Flyer by Peter M. Bowers:

Steam-powered engines
The only one to make a full-pattern manned flight was the 150-horse, two-cylinder Besler

1st May 1974

Back in the days before the Wright brothers' first flight, would-be inventors of flying machines had no suitable powerplants with which to experiment. The few individuals who had progressed to the point of flying large-scale models or their full-size contraptions used steam engines. The first to achieve any degree of success was Professor Samuel P. Langley’s scale-model Aerodrome, which flew for some 3,000 feet along the Potomac River in May 1896.

While steam engines produced the necessary power, they were far too heavy for flying machines, so it remained for the gasoline engine to make the airplane work. While such things were in wide use for marine, automotive and fixed operations by the turn of the century, there were no available adaptations for aircraft use. The Wright bothers had to build their own before they made the first successful powered flight in December 1903.
However, despite the gas engine’s total monopoly of the airplane industry ever since, inventors have periodically considered the steam engine as the proper powerplant for aircraft. Various experimental installations have been made over the years, but none have been practical.
The most successful, and the only one to make a proper full-pattern flight, was the Besler, a two-cylinder, 150-horsepower design developed by brothers George and William Besler. The engine was installed in a Travel Air 2000 biplane and was successfully flown at the Oakland (California) Airport on April 12, 1933.
The 180-pound engine was quite light for steam, but its accessories — boiler, water, pump, condensers, etc. - increased its weight to more than 500 pounds, which actually wasn’t much more than the World War I-surplus Curtiss OX-5 that had been removed from the plane. An inlet pressure of 1,200 pounds was used, and the propeller was turned at 1,625rpm, a couple of hundred more than the old OX-5 at its best.
The steam-powered plane made only one flight, a short trip around the airport, but it did prove that steam could be used as a means of propulsion for airplanes. There is a big difference between being merely successful, however, and being competitive, and nothing more was done with the steam engine. The Beslers continued their association with the Dobel Steam Car Company of Emeryville, Califomia, and made steam-based smoke generators for the Army during World War II.
When I last saw it, the Besler engine that was removed from the Travel Air was on display in the engine shop of the Boeing School of Aeronautics at the Oakland Airport in 1942.
The Army took the school over during the war, and it was closed afterward. If the engine still exists, it should be placedin a suitable museum.

The photographs
1. The experimental 150-horsepower Besler steam engine replaced the 90-horsepower, water-cooled Curtiss OX-5 in this standard Travel Air 2000.
2. The two-cylinder Besler steam engine that went in the Travel Air had a vertical boiler and firebox immediately behind it.
3. Close-up of the steam-powered Travel Air shows the two radiators that were necessary to condense steam back into water so the supply could be maintained long enough for the plane to make a full-circuit flight.
 

Attachments

  • steam.jpg
    steam.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 185
Last edited:
Steam power remained competitive in fast marine vessels for quite a long time, it was the preferred choice for destroyers even after the war. When high octane fuel was not widespread available and very costly, the idea of using steam power for planes is not inherent stupid. I guess, the condenser was the Achilles heel in this concept, ships are surrounded by unlimited cooling water so condensing wasn’t an issue. Combustion engines have about the same amount of cooling heat as power output, whereas the condensing heat of steam power is about 6 to 10 times greater than the useful power. The Bessler steam plane did only short flight, I guess, because the condenser couldn’t condense enough water and they ran out of water.
 
I wonder if that might work in gas giants?
Nice question. I have a similar felling about the capabilities of this powertrain in a AIP submarine system. Something usefull to the Sea Tigers of Sri Lanka or Drug lords of South America.
 
Last edited:
The Besler Brothers prove that is possible use steam in a flight. The aussie Ed Pritchard prove the compactness of the steam to a modern automobile. Years late other guy in Australia invented the Di Pietro air engine, that could be adapted to steam and change everything. Steam Power could be the ultimate solution to the dilemma of efficient mobility and low emissions, with a good and old (a.k.a. well experimented, proved) technology. Modern Steam Locomotives with improved technologies developed by Eng. Porta et al could overcome Diesel engine locos in a variety of applications on railways. To me is just a matter of time to the reborn of phenix steam.

And you guys, thats makes some sense?
 
Relax bro. I am Brazilian and had troubles to identify sarcasm...

Well, my posting was totally relaxed, but now that you deleted your posting, no one can make sense of it anymore...

Acually, Azevedo quoted me in Spanish (at least I though so, but it might have been Portuguese..) .that's the whole story
 
Well, Im really a big fan of steam engines and an admirer of Livio Dante Porta, also I own the book “red Devil” from David Waredale (which is about modernizing a steam locomotive in South Africa with methods mainly developed by Livio Dante Porta). I started about thinking steam engines very early in my life (I’ve witnessed the last steam engines of western Germany in my very early childhood), so yes, I really love steam. I ended up becoming a combustion engine developer by my early love for steam engine, so I know both very well.

I think the highest drawbar efficiency ever reached by a steam locomotive (the Argentina of Livio Dante Porta) was 14,5 %, which was twice that of an average steam locomotive. Locomotive Diesel engines alone achieve around 46 %-50%, but of course, the efficiency at the drawbar will be much lower, but even so, it will be at least twice as much, as the most efficient steam locomotive ever built.

The advantage of steam will never be a high efficiency, the only niche which it potentially offers is using biomass based fuels which can not be used by Diesel engines, basically wood pallets or pyrolysis oil. So if you dream about environment friendly steam engines, you should focus on that (
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT1ApY4YLhU
). Of course, this isn’t an option for planes, the energy density would be far to low.

The Besler steam plane only flew about for 15 min and never used a condenser. This is a very critical point since condensing steam engines have to get rid of heat by coolers about 8 times as high as the power output whereas for combustion engines it is only about the same as the power output. This alone is a total killer for steam planes. Carrying enough water without condensation it totally unpractical for steam planes and that was the nail in the coffin for the Besler steam plane.
 
A modern steam-powered airplane would use a steam turbine to turn the propeller.
Is there any way to funnel the used steam out the back end to provide jet propulsion?
 
Sure, you could use the low pressure steam for jet propulsion, just like exhaust gases were used for thrust in piston engines. The amount of water which would be consumed without condensation would make a plane only suitable for very short ranges.

Quite recently, we have seen a modern combined steam cycle with condensation in this forum, this could at least partielly regarded as steam propulsion:

 
Last edited:
A few questions on the Besler biplane (speculative answers welcome).

It has a radiator and all of the labelled diagrams point to it being a condenser, yet we see footage with lots of steam blowing out (apparently when the engine is throttle up). Why is that?
Additionally (and this may be a daft question) - where is the water reservoir? Is all of the water contained within the steam generator? Or is it fed into it from a separate tank?
 
A few questions on the Besler biplane (speculative answers welcome).

It has a radiator and all of the labelled diagrams point to it being a condenser, yet we see footage with lots of steam blowing out (apparently when the engine is throttle up). Why is that?
Additionally (and this may be a daft question) - where is the water reservoir? Is all of the water contained within the steam generator? Or is it fed into it from a separate tank?
Quick uneducated guess. When it's on the ground there is not enough airflow over the condenser for it to work properly. Maybe also during takeoff when full power is needed the condenser is bypassed"?
 
@hole in the ground , please read:


very likely, the condenser wasnt able to condense enough water. To take a look on a propiate condenser to steam engine size:

So there would have been some sort of relief valve?
Do you think there would have been a seperate water reservoir? Or was it just held in the coil of the boiler?
 
why don't you just read my posting? It will will give you the answer....
 
why don't you just read my posting? It will will give you the answer....
I’m not sure which bit you think I missed. Or which post you are referring to. You’ve suggested (and I think it seems reasonable) that the radiator was far too small to condense enough water.

I don’t see an answer to the part of my original question about a reservoir for water.

And my follow on question after your response is about a relief valve for excess vapour.
 
There has surly been a relieve valve, but what we see in the video looks to me much more like the exhaust from the low pressure cylinder, clearly indicating that the steam cicruit is opened.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom