6

I have a post-apocalyptic scenario, set in the ruins of an American metropolis with flooded streets. Boats are used most of the time, but aircrafts have advantages, for battle or if you have to get on top of some skyscraper ruin.

With the apocalypse some decades ago, I tend to compare the post apocalyptic world to the situation in present-day developing world countries:
The rich can afford advanced weapons and lifestyle while the poor live as farmers or fishers under primitive circumstances (mixing in some exceptions that are necessary and easily available).
The only difference: While a nowadays those things are ordered from industrialized countries, there is no industrialized country left (or at least known) in the post apocalyptic world. Instead scavenged technology is filling that gap, if it can be reconditioned and run.

**For one-person flights I discovered a really badass and simple aircraft that actually works: the Paravelo** (and here is another clip of the takeoff).

 


I need big aircrafts for transportation, travel and battle, that can land on water and on dry land.

More specific:
One impressive looking flagship (kind of a flying siege tower) and
some transporters for soldiers and goods.

I thought about going with airships but if you have completely different ideas for a physically working badass aircrafts that are not too technologically advanced just post them below.


 

  1. Materials:

Scavenged materials are an obvious choice, living in the remains of a metropolis. Empty gasoline barrels (metal or plastic) or plastic tubes as floating bodies for the catamaran. Aluminum traffic signs (big highway lane/direction signs) as floor or walls. Some plastic sheets maybe somehow for the actual balloon.
On the other hand there are natural resources: Bamboo is very light but bending and strong, it could be used for some scaffolding constructions (cf. Chinese skyscraper scaffoldings; there actually was an airship with a bamboo frame) and maybe rattan mattes/basket constructions.
Do you have any more ideas for materials/constructions that could be used (either natural or scavenged materials)?

  1. Buoyancy:

A lifting gas should be easy and cheap to produce with primitive means (cf. retrieving helium while most of the earth is under water?) and safe enough not to burst into flames by one burning arrow (cf. hydrogen).
(Not saying it may not be flammable at all - storywise nothing is more boring than an invincible weapon. It only shouldn't be too easy to shoot them down.)
I thought about using hot air or steam for the lift, ideally by burning wood or straw (one of the first experimental airships in France burned straw and fabric) or another resource that is easy to produce in a pre-industrial society. Is that efficient enough to keep an airship flying for some hours with 7 to 15 people aboard and some transported goods and weapons, given the materials used in point 1? (On the other hand I don’t have an aluminum frame or a luxurious, hotel-like lounge as provided in the Hindenburg). Especially carrying wood (to provide heat) seems to be way overweight for an airship. How could a steam-balloon work with limited technical possibilities?

  1. Drive:

I guess the use of scavenged material and technology can be compared to non-renewable resources in our time: As long as there is enough of them it's more self-evident to use them instead of inventing/producing own stuff that is more costly, takes more time to build and works less effective.

Gasoline is not very durable but electricity is quite easy to produce and there are other things to burn (like alcohol or even coconut oil) to keep old, modified motors running.
Otherwise a hot air turbine or a steam engine could be built into the oven heating the balloon.
(Sails don’t work for airships because there is not enough water/air resistance to choose a direction willingly, the whole ship would just be gone with the wind all the time.)
Especially the drive by manpower is interesting: People are quite inefficient as power source but there are (special lightweight, one-person) pedal-powered blimps. So - could one make that work and even be agile and quick? An air galley (a modified version of the normal airships with pedals for the propellers) would make an interesting aircraft for slave traders...

  1. Shape:

How important is streamline for an airship? The airship doesn't have to win races but should be able to keep up with sailing ships on the water. Would a catamaran boat with a cabin on top as gondola be a big disatvantage, compared to the classical fantasy monohull airship-ship-gondolas?

  1. Floating body:

Do airships need a floating body (not a balloon but a keel or catamaran boat hull or a raft made of plastic cans) to land on water?


I know that is more than one question, but they are linked somehow (like using an oven for a thermal airship could be combined with a hot air turbine for propellers)


Don't forget, stories are about conflict. So some weakness and level of risk in any means of transportation, weapon or defense are a positive thing. It means there is some danger for your hero (which keeps your audience/player invested) and a possibility to fight the antagonists back.

  • 7
    It took decades of engineering, materials science, and failed efforts to make a dirigible that didn't promptly crash on it's third-or-fourth flight, killing much of the crew. Scavenged materials are likely to be much too weak and much too heavy. Without lightweight, powerful engines, your leader is essentially ballooning, at the mercy of the strongest breeze. Oh, and fuel burned causes the airship to rise, so be ready to valve some of that precious helium. And the threats of common weather. – user535733 Aug 16 '19 at 00:02
  • 5
    You keep using the word "balloon". An airship is not a balloon, and the nice rounded shape is just an envelope, basically a fairing. (Yes, there are non-rigid airships where the envelope is pressurized to provide strength. It still is not a balloon.) Hot-air airships have been made, but they require advanced 20th century technology, and have very much less carrying capacity than a hydrogen or helium-filled airship of the same size. – AlexP Aug 16 '19 at 00:17
  • 1
    @AlexP My bad. I'm neither a native speaker nor an airship expert. "Balloon" was meant to name the envelope of a (non-rigid) blimp.

    What do you mean by requiring 20th century technology? Motors, light, gas-tight fabric for the envelope or lightweight materials for the airship frame? The Montgolfière relied on heat (but was not dirigible of course and didn't have to carry much weight), Stanley Spencer even created an airship frame of bamboo (but that was also a lightweight one-person-only scaffolding).

    – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 03:22
  • @user535733 It has been decades since the fall of the old world but the times are chaotic. And it is easier to employ a da Vinci to puzzlle everything out (more or less) than to construct a helium plant and keep it running or built the factory to melt aluminum to gigantic frame parts if you are at war with your neighbors and struggle to feed your people. – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 03:58
  • While working on the costume for my actor I made the mistake to make it too perfect and neat. So I took some extra time to destroy and stain and burn and scratch everything. The story is set in the ruins of WW3 - The airship should work (I don't want to be another movie to stick a little air baloon to a sailing ship and just pretend it flies). But the airship shouldn’t work too perfectly – as you said yourself, it took a long time to perfect that technology and we are not there yet, in the story. We’re at a time of departure, of renaissance. So yes, we need light materials... – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 04:10
  • ...and we need a strong drive. But there is not enough time and resources to build and invent special materials to perfect the flight characteristics. – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 04:11
  • 1
    why not make crude helium, if you have access to crude oil or natural gas you can make crude helium. it has a lot of argon, co2, and hydrogen in it but its safe and provides most of the same lifting power. also there are other hydrocarbon fuels besides gasoline,.kerosene and diesel come to mind. – John Sep 13 '19 at 13:10
  • 1
    Just a mention, flaming arrows have never been a thing - the velocity puts out any flame and the transported flame cannot be big or hot enough to light anything that isn’t already highly flammable. – XenoDwarf Jan 29 '20 at 13:27
  • In all of this, did anyone suggest ammonia? It's a lifting gas (not the lightest) but it can be manufactured with early 20th century tech, and it can be condensed with refrigerators on the ship to reduce buoyancy, then re-released to lift again. Low flammability. It is kind of poisonous and corrosive, but that adds to the post-apocalyptic charm. Good for a semi-permanent airship. Hydrogen is still cheaper and easier, though. – DWKraus Jan 19 '21 at 23:36

2 Answers2

20

hydrogen is too weak – one flaming arrow and the approaching flying battle-platform turns into (cinematographically appealing) fireworks.

Only if your engineers are idiots. The cinematic flames from the Hindenburg crash are not burning hydrogen--they are from the combusting envelope, which was basically painted with jet fuel. The hydrogen didn't help, and in fairness there were good reasons for the envelope being constructed as it was, being originally designed to be filled with helium, but hydrogen is not as dangerous in airships as people commonly believe.

If your ship is well-designed, especially knowing that it will be going into battle, there will be no way for a flaming arrow to get anywhere close to the hydrogen, short of catastrophic damage to the point that you've already lost the battle anyway. The outer hull of a rigid airship does not contain the lifting gas directly--rather, it is a protective and aerodynamic structure surrounding a series of more-nearly-spherical internal ballonets. Make the external hull sheathing out of something non-flammable, and you'll be fine. Make it out of something that will burn when hit with an arrow, and fill it with lifting gas directly rather than using partitioned ballonets, and it won't matter what lifting gas you use--your ship is going down anyway.

Ideally, you'd fill the interstitial space with some other inert buffer gas, like nitrogen, but that might be difficult for your recovering civilization to source.

Steam-lifted airships are technically possible, but extremely tricky. It's a decent lifting gas, and makes it very easy to control buoyancy by allowing some to recondense into water, but the ballonets must be extremely well insulated, and it takes a lot of energy to boil all that water and keep it hot even with good insulation. And if one of the ballonets is damaged in flight, maintenance is just about impossible--rather than a lazy diffusion of hydrogen into the hull, which you can slap a patch over at leisure, you'll have a jet of superheated steam waiting to scald your crew to death.

A decent compromise might be to use syngas. The CO content makes leaks somewhat toxic, but in-flight maintenance is still possible if done quickly, and if the hull is kept well-ventilated. It can be produced with a wood gasifier, but unlike a steam balloon or a straight hot air balloon, you don't need to carry enough fuel to keep the lifting gas hot for the whole flight--just enough to generate the lifting gas in the first place, and maybe heat/cool it for fine buoyancy control.

Syngas also has the advantage of being useful fuel for engines. There have been cars designed to run on wood gasifiers, so if you can build or recover some decent lightweight internal combustion engines, you don't necessarily need to find or carry gasoline or diesel fuel; you can run them off the same gas generator that supplies your ballonets.

If you want it to go reasonably fast, streamlining is important. That's why rigid airships are cigar-shaped, rather than spherical. But a catamaran arrangement, with two lifting hulls encasing parallel series of ballonets, is perfectly fine for an airship, just as it is for a ship-ship. The problem with putting a cabin on top is roll instability; an airship is suspended within its medium, not on top of it like a watercraft, so roll is not counteracted by differential buoyant forces as it is for a regular catamaran. You can have a small cabin sticking out the top, but you will need to ensure that most of the weight of the airship is concentrated at the bottom, or it will just flip over shortly after you leave the water.

As for materials, lacquered cloth is traditional for making balloons to hold lifting gas. You could use that for ballonets, but I would stick to plastic sheeting, or just plain canvas, for the exterior envelope, for fire safety.

Logan R. Kearsley
  • 42,311
  • 4
  • 96
  • 178
  • I'm afraid I came off more visionary that I actually am. I originally thought of mounting a catamaran (boat), containing a platform and a cabin, under one floating airship envelope. However, reading your idea of my idea, I might consider just putting the platform inbetween 2 envelopes star wars Empirial Fighter style – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 14:22
  • About the Hindenburg - while the back is burning you can see flames bursting out of the "nose", which was a result of the inner explosions. There are several theories what caused the tragedy, including a bomb or shots fired, but it is mostly belived, that a leaking hydrogen ballonet caught fire as the ropes touched the earth, grounding the zeppelin while the envelope was full of static electricity (because of the paint). So if that can happen by only a rope touching the ground, what might some ignited arrows or harpoon bolts do... – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 14:34
  • The whole exploding thing is not even a problem - storywise nothing is more tedious than an invincible weapon or fortress - thank god for that exhaust shaft on the death star. The other side must always be able to fight back. And I even thought about including some sort of self destruction mechanism that would leave the crew some seconds to abandon the ship before blowing the whole thing up to make sure, a wrecked/conquered ship won't deliver this unique technology to the enemy (other groups just use normal ships by now). – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 14:45
  • It only shouldn't be too easy for the attacked party to take all striking airships down with some arrows, harpoon bolts or flame throwers (even the ancient romans had some of the latter), but offer possibilities of a "real" fight. By the way "battle airship" doesn't mean throwing bombs from over the clouds but more of a floating siege tower to enable the own forces to enter the hostile wals, or shoot at them directly. – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 14:51
  • Syngas contains hydrogen and methane (20 - 55%), which are lighter than air, CO (35 - 40%), which is almost the same density as air and CO2 (25 - 35%) which is heavier than air. Isn't that too less to be used as lifting gas? Or would additional heating create enough buoyancy? – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 14:59
  • You might be right about the (low) risk of immediate explosion without retreat or emergency landing. Here is something similar, stating that airships are too big for single shots to be fatal and rigid airships are not pressurized which means "the lifting gas is in no hurry to escape": link Even pointing to WW1 Zeppelins (probably using hydrogen) that didn't immediately start a pyrotechnic lightshow. – Creative Frankenstein Aug 16 '19 at 15:32
  • 1
    @CeeMon Buoyancy depends on the precise composition of any particular batch, which may make it kind of a crapshoot. As long as you can keep the CO2 fraction low, though--which is really just a matter of controlling the flow of air to the gassifier--it should be fine. And there are fairly low-tech ways of pulling the CO2 out of the gas stream, if that turns out to be necessary. – Logan R. Kearsley Aug 16 '19 at 17:49
  • 1
    I like this answer so will tack on my idea here: scavenged graphene sheets for your envelope. Graphene is nonreactive, non biodegradable and super tough - ideal for your hydrogen filled airship. – Willk Aug 18 '19 at 00:33
  • @Willk where are graphene sheets used in/as? Where/how could one find/disintegrate them in the ruins and relics of the old world? I mean the whole story is set in the future so I could just postulate that by the outbreak of WW3 graphene has widely been used as... stuff. But is it in use right now or are there concrete plans/ideas to use graphene sheets yet? Like aluminum plates could be gained from traffic signs, what products could you "harvest" graphene sheets from? – Creative Frankenstein Aug 19 '19 at 14:15
  • 1
    @Cee Mon: read up on graphene https://www.explainthatstuff.com/graphene.html One thought - to replace window glass. It would be easy to make multi-ply graphene windows which let thru more light than glass, was much lighter than glass, and was unbreakable. – Willk Aug 19 '19 at 21:52
  • @Willk I meant which objects could you harvest graphene sheets from for an airship envelope. There are some tinkerers who might experiment with lighter-than-air-gases and steerage for an airship but changing the atomic structure of a material to produce graphene from graphite is out of their league and their technical possibilities. Maybe (if the material allows it) one could recycle existing graphene windows by melting them into big flat layers if the material doesn't loose its special atomic structure by that and if normal fires with wood are hot enough for that... – Creative Frankenstein Aug 20 '19 at 22:16
  • ...It's not only important that the material exists but also that it exists in a form that can be used/changed for use with very simple means. (@Willk) – Creative Frankenstein Aug 20 '19 at 22:17
  • But according to it's description in the text it offers a huge potential so it might end up getting used very broadly in the (real) future. So telling a story set in the even more distant future without including it might be as unrealistic as imagining the present without plastic. But still, I can only recycle it with simple means, not produce it on my own - the usable technology varies between middle ages and early 19th century with some few modern exceptions (e. g. complete motors, recovered from the ruins, where only little things have to be repaired). – Creative Frankenstein Aug 20 '19 at 22:24
  • 1
    @Cee Mon - I imagined enormous windows, as might be in an airport or reception hall. Huge windows made of a single unbroken stretch of graphene. – Willk Aug 21 '19 at 00:40
  • @Willk But are those windows bendable enough to shape them over the streamline shape of an airship envelope? (If that material was so soft it probably woudln't be used for huge windows). And if they are not - can that material somehow be melted or reshaped without destroying the atomic structure that gives its special abilities? – Creative Frankenstein Aug 21 '19 at 00:47
  • 2
    @CeeMon - youtube up some graphene. The premise here is that you can make a thin flexible graphene film that looks like plastic and is stronger than steel. The problem with current tech is making a single sheet that is big enough. In your world, use the salvaged windows as panes in a blimp made up of multiple polygons like a soccer ball or geodesic dome. – Willk Aug 21 '19 at 02:29
  • 1
    Mythbusters did an episode on that theory and found that hydrogen was the main component for the Hindenburg fire. Although they missed the opportunity to test a non-flammable envelope, which would likely have stopped the initial burn from traveling along the envelope and increasing the area the helium could escape and burn. Also it took tricks to set airships on fire. First a few hundred bullets crested holes, then a period of time they waited before using incendiary bullets to ignite hydrogen OUTSIDE the envelope, as inside there wasnt enough oxygen to ignite. – Demigan May 15 '21 at 18:16
4

Early aircraft were build out of wood, canvas and wire, and this construction extended to flying boats as well. Some flying boats simply used pontoons strapped to the airplane where landing gear went, while more advanced ones used hydrodynamic hulls.

enter image description here

Felixstowe F2. 1917

So even using WWI era technology, you still can build capable flying boats.

The larger problem is how to power them. Salvaged piston engines from cars or light trucks likely have the power needed, but might fail to work since the electronic components and computers needed to run engines since the 1980's will likely have failed. Gas turbine engines from small helicopters or light aircraft could still work, so long as they have been carefully stored (one that has been sitting on the runway for years or decades will have rusted solid). The other issue is a high energy fuel. Aviation gasoline, ordinary gas, diesel and JP-8 all have relatively short shelf lives (months to a few years at best), so your post apocalyptic society either needs to be able to drill for new oil, create some sort of synthetic fuel or even power aircraft engines by wood gas (this is a low performance option and fills the engines with tar and other gunk)

enter image description here

Simple wood gas generator

Flying boats can be amphibians, and many different types have been made, from medium sized water bombers to large anti submarine patrol craft. Larger airplanes need more room, so take off, landing or flying down streets is going to be a challenge.

enter image description here

Canadair CL-215 Amphibian

enter image description here

ShinMaywa US-2 as an example of a large seaplane

So building an airframe even out of salvaged materials isn't all that difficult, the real problem is going to be getting a decent power supply. Going electric is not going to be the answer, batteries only have about 1/20th the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels, and advanced battery packs like on a Tesla car use sophisticated temperature control and electronics to get the maximum energy in and out of the battery. Once again, in a post apocalyptic environment, getting and keeping things like that working may be far more difficult than is possible for most people.

https://electrek.co/2017/08/24/tesla-model-3-exclusive-battery-pack-architecture/

Thucydides
  • 97,696
  • 8
  • 96
  • 311