The ECU's compensate for altitude automatically. The
engines do get somewhat better fuel efficiency at higher
altitudes. Unfortunately, single stage turbines suffer
some performance loss with altitude, requiring higher
RPM for the same thrust. Climb rates suffer, but true
airspeeds get better. The cooler temps at altitude
help a lot. In the next few weeks I'm hoping to get
into wave and see what kind of performance I get after
starting them up at 20,000' or so.

As for the finicky starting mentioned by Mike in Arizona,
that problem has been fixed. Turns out I had a bad
fuel preheat tube. I haven't had a balky start since.
I've also cleaned up the wiring and switching a lot.
Starting is very straightforward now. I'll likely
be back in Arizona in the spring to practice acro and
renew my low-level card.

Bob C

At 04:54 16 November 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:

'bagmaker' wrote in message
...

That was Bob Carlson's idea. Instead of 75 gallons
of water in my
Nimbus 2C
wings, he asked, how about Jet-A? Instead of dumping
ballast when
running out of altitude and ideas, burn it in the
jet engines and come
home.
The N2 could cruise at over 100mph for 7.5 hours using
Bob's twin jets.

Unfortunately, that 75 Gallons of Jet-A would cost
$250 today.

Bill Daniels[color+blue]


$250 for 12000 km flying? still sounds cheap!
I hate to throw spanners, but doesnt a micro turboprop
fit the bill for
us? Nothing I know of available, but.......


Wayne C.


--
bagmaker

I'm not sure how well the engine controllers work on
these tiny jets but
they should allow them to be more efficient at higher
altitudes. The
maximum range could be quite a bit more.

The micro jets are cool because they tuck into the
fuselage so neatly and
the residual weight after the fuel is burned is low.
Anything with a prop
is clumsy by comparison.

I'm sure they have a future in soaring.

Bill Daniels