If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Jet Sailplane Flies!
All,
Please refer to the following link to see a video of the Silent moter-glider with jet engine's attached. It is absolutely amazing watching a sailplane doing a low pass with jet engines screaming, AND self-launching. http://www.alisport.com/pag_ing/news.htm Yes, the Jet's on the Silent ARE retractable. For those of you who saw the pictures of the Ventus 2 moter-glider with Jet engines attached, there is no way that thing self-launched. It does not count unless it can self-launch! Here are the general numbers for those of you who would like to do the math. The engines produce 34 pounds of thrust each, and with a flying weight of about 1000 pounds, initial takeoff acceleration would be a blistering 0.06 G's (About 1 knot a second). You would need a REALLY long runway (See Edwards AFB) at sea level in order to get the thing in the air, IF they could even produce enough thrust to beat the breaking point to start the roll (Doubtful). -Mitch Hudson |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It's a great sight and a great achievement. Practically though these
engines have a huge problem of poor fuel consumption. The consumption is about 95lts/hour. A petrol self launcher will use 16lts/hr and will have a 21lt tank. To give the same duration the jet will need a very large and heavy-when-full 120lt tank. "Mhudson126" wrote in message ... All, Please refer to the following link to see a video of the Silent moter-glider with jet engine's attached. It is absolutely amazing watching a sailplane doing a low pass with jet engines screaming, AND self-launching. http://www.alisport.com/pag_ing/news.htm Yes, the Jet's on the Silent ARE retractable. For those of you who saw the pictures of the Ventus 2 moter-glider with Jet engines attached, there is no way that thing self-launched. It does not count unless it can self-launch! Here are the general numbers for those of you who would like to do the math. The engines produce 34 pounds of thrust each, and with a flying weight of about 1000 pounds, initial takeoff acceleration would be a blistering 0.06 G's (About 1 knot a second). You would need a REALLY long runway (See Edwards AFB) at sea level in order to get the thing in the air, IF they could even produce enough thrust to beat the breaking point to start the roll (Doubtful). -Mitch Hudson |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
To give the same duration the jet will need a very large and
heavy-when-full 120lt tank. Yes but what about the weight saving over the mechanics of the petrol engine/prop etc.? Peter S DLA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The advantage of the lightweight jet engine is totally eclipsed by the fuel
consumption problem. A self launcher engine and prop and fuel tanks weighs 55-60kg with full fuel tanks. They are already heavy enough and it would be better to go lighter not heavier. A pair of jet engines will weigh only 7kg but the fuel with tanks will be about 95kg and so at 103kg is nearly double the weight surcharge, furthermore as I implied before there is a big problem in finding enough room to store 120lts. There may also be a weight and balance issue but if the fuel were stored in the wing tanks instead of water ballast that would be less of a problem but you would have little room left or weight reserve for water then. You could treat the fuel as ballast and dump the fuel if you chose to, it is pretty cheap stuff, cheaper than many brands of mineral water. If there existed a model fanjet engine and if it were to use say less than half the fuel, a jet engine would begin to look like a good option. "Peter Seddon" wrote in message ... To give the same duration the jet will need a very large and heavy-when-full 120lt tank. Yes but what about the weight saving over the mechanics of the petrol engine/prop etc.? Peter S DLA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviatio...563899,00.html
Interesting reading in the 01/2004 Popular Science and the approach to fuel consumption. Frank Whiteley "John Mason" wrote in message ... The advantage of the lightweight jet engine is totally eclipsed by the fuel consumption problem. A self launcher engine and prop and fuel tanks weighs 55-60kg with full fuel tanks. They are already heavy enough and it would be better to go lighter not heavier. A pair of jet engines will weigh only 7kg but the fuel with tanks will be about 95kg and so at 103kg is nearly double the weight surcharge, furthermore as I implied before there is a big problem in finding enough room to store 120lts. There may also be a weight and balance issue but if the fuel were stored in the wing tanks instead of water ballast that would be less of a problem but you would have little room left or weight reserve for water then. You could treat the fuel as ballast and dump the fuel if you chose to, it is pretty cheap stuff, cheaper than many brands of mineral water. If there existed a model fanjet engine and if it were to use say less than half the fuel, a jet engine would begin to look like a good option. "Peter Seddon" wrote in message ... To give the same duration the jet will need a very large and heavy-when-full 120lt tank. Yes but what about the weight saving over the mechanics of the petrol engine/prop etc.? Peter S DLA |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
If there existed a model fanjet engine and if it were to use say less
than half the fuel, a jet engine would begin to look like a good option. Not so long ago a jet engine of the size to fit into a model was just a dream so perhaps a small turbo fan my soon be on the cards. Peter S DLA |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
If the goal is soaring, whta is such amount of fuel needeed?
Fuel for few minutes to climb up to 500-1000 m, then fly soaring with only a little amount of spare fuel to lenghten the final glide, if seems to be getting short and no chance of convections. Maybe that 55-60 kg total weight would be enough for engine and fuel, about half of it as emergency spare. Noisy yes, and qoite flammable with burning heat gases. There is a rocket fuel, peroxid, which generates adjustable thrust and exhausts only hot water and oxygen, but it's unfortunately dangerosly bioactive. Used to blond hair, too. js "John Mason" wrote in message ... The advantage of the lightweight jet engine is totally eclipsed by the fuel consumption problem. A self launcher engine and prop and fuel tanks weighs 55-60kg with full fuel tanks. They are already heavy enough and it would be better to go lighter not heavier. A pair of jet engines will weigh only 7kg but the fuel with tanks will be about 95kg and so at 103kg is nearly double the weight surcharge, furthermore as I implied before there is a big problem in finding enough room to store 120lts. There may also be a weight and balance issue but if the fuel were stored in the wing tanks instead of water ballast that would be less of a problem but you would have little room left or weight reserve for water then. You could treat the fuel as ballast and dump the fuel if you chose to, it is pretty cheap stuff, cheaper than many brands of mineral water. If there existed a model fanjet engine and if it were to use say less than half the fuel, a jet engine would begin to look like a good option. "Peter Seddon" wrote in message ... To give the same duration the jet will need a very large and heavy-when-full 120lt tank. Yes but what about the weight saving over the mechanics of the petrol engine/prop etc.? Peter S DLA |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Not for me (too noisy) but interesting.
I wouldn't want all that heat pointed at my vertical stabilizer though. Also, I imagine you'd have to let it cool down before retracting the engines. Paul Remde "Mhudson126" wrote in message ... All, Please refer to the following link to see a video of the Silent moter-glider with jet engine's attached. It is absolutely amazing watching a sailplane doing a low pass with jet engines screaming, AND self-launching. http://www.alisport.com/pag_ing/news.htm Yes, the Jet's on the Silent ARE retractable. For those of you who saw the pictures of the Ventus 2 moter-glider with Jet engines attached, there is no way that thing self-launched. It does not count unless it can self-launch! Here are the general numbers for those of you who would like to do the math. The engines produce 34 pounds of thrust each, and with a flying weight of about 1000 pounds, initial takeoff acceleration would be a blistering 0.06 G's (About 1 knot a second). You would need a REALLY long runway (See Edwards AFB) at sea level in order to get the thing in the air, IF they could even produce enough thrust to beat the breaking point to start the roll (Doubtful). -Mitch Hudson |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
D.C. Air Guard Unit Flies New 737s | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 14th 04 11:12 PM |
Sailplane Homebuilders Association workshop "report" | Eric Greenwell | Soaring | 0 | September 12th 03 06:07 AM |
Electro-self-launching sailplane | clement | Soaring | 5 | September 12th 03 05:03 AM |
Enola Gay flies into new A-bomb controversy | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 21st 03 09:10 PM |
uh oh, Plane flies over Bush motorcade | Mutts | Piloting | 38 | July 29th 03 04:20 AM |