 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: To Brian W. |
 |
|
Brian, I get the feeling the Impulse Extreme might be
an abandoned pipe-dream project that never got off the
ground. I noticed in one of the links on their website
the date of 2004- so it has been at least a few
years. They claim the Allison 250 can run off of jet
fuel or unleaded car gas- seems like an unusual
claim... charles
--- Brian Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Charles,
I don't know any more about the Impulse than what
is posted. In over a year it doesn't look like the
site has changed other than adding a pic of their
Unlimited Aerobatic plane similar to an Extra on the
front page of the site. Brian W.
> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:32:22 -0700> From:
cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Lightning-List:
RE: To Brian W. // Tom Hoffman> To:
lightning-list(at)matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List
message posted by: Charles Dewey
<cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>> > Brian- When will the
Impulse Extreme be available?> > Tom Hoffman- I
heard you did a great job with the area> that covers
the area between the wheel pant and the> fuselage.
can you explain how you did it? charles> > Charles>
--- Brian Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com> wrote:>
> > > > Charles,> > Were you the one that asked
about a turboprop> > Lightning? Here's a vision of
what one might look> > like with a turboprop and
tailwheel and tip tanks. > >>
http://www.capco-aviation.be/Impulse%20Gallery/IprobJet.jpg>
|
| Quote: | > It is a real aircraft, called the Capco Impulse> >
Xtreme. It is that! 220knot cruise speed or 270> >
knot full throttle. 8,000 fpm climb rates and a> >
fuel burn of 15gph at 220 knots. The stall speed is>
> 54 knots and takeoff and landing distances are
about> > like the Lightning. Look through these
aircraft> > here:> >
http://www.capco-aviation.be/Impulse%20Aircraft.htm
> > Scroll down and look at the Impulse Xcite. It
has> > what I imagine the new flared tips for the
future> > Lightnings might look like. It features an
IO-320> > and cruises at 190mph on what I would
think would be> > around 10 gph. > > > > Personally
I like that small turboprop. Looks like> > an SF-260
turboprop, such as here:> >
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1003679&size=L>
|
| Quote: | > Which is in of itself a development of the Falco.
> > I would also say that for an aircraft capable
of> > 300mph the Xtreme is probably the lowest fuel
that> > you'll find. That Relentless NXT of Kevin's
is for> > sale now on ebay, opening bid $250k. No
takers yet.> > He is burning around 30 gph at full
tilt, and about> > 380mph! The Xcite also gives you
an idea of what> > it'd take to get a plane of
roughly the same size> > and shape up to those
speeds. It has about 300hp> > from a derated Allison
turboprop. 100hp = 175 mph,> > 300 = 250mph. Also
notice that 3 times the power> > doesn't equal three
times the speed. The first> > 200mph come at a
pretty low power, but the next> > 50-70mph takes 3
times the power! 3 times the power,> > and also
notice, three times the fuel burn from 5gph> > -
15gph. Still, this is not bad, considering it's> >
about like a new Bonanza or Mooney. > > > > The
airplane that I was considering for modification> >
to a 250mph machine is this one:> >>
http://www.millennium-aircraft.com/photogallery.php?id=1&img=images/multimedia/photo/1/DSC_9698T.jpg>
|
| Quote: | > I was looking for 250-260mph at full throttle> >
though. It's a beautiful little tandom seat> >
aerobatic airplane. It is not as wide as the> >
Lightning and about the same height cabin, so
should> > be reduction of frontal area. The wing is
a high> > speed design. The plane also features a
built in> > fire suppression system and BRS
equipped. It's> > capable of 190mph on a 100hp
Rotax. I think if you> > doubled the power, perhaps
a little more than double> > it'd do 250mph wide
open. The modified Jabiru> > engine, reportedly
capable of 200hp is from the> > "Snark" UAV and can
be read about here: > >>
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://www.gizmag.com.au/go/4785/1/>
|
| Quote: | > > > Brian W> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:58
-0700>> > From: cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RE:>
> RE: Flying Pencil> To:> >
lightning-list(at)matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List>
> message posted by: Charles Dewey> >
<cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>> > Brian, Thanks for the> >
responses. That is a lot of> great material you> >
gave. With the hand out the window> example, it> >
seems like if you had a Jabiru 3300 on a> plane
that> > had half the height (vertical dimension) of>
the> > Lightning, was only a one-seater (thus
narrower),>> > and one would virtually be laying
down while> > flying;> it would greatly increase
your> > aerodynamics. It would> truly be a flying
pencil. It> > seems like these> aerodynamic
improvements would> > more than make up for> the
lack of engine brawn, and> > be able to push the>
plane to 250. It actually> > sounds really
comfortable> practically lying down> > while flying-
you would have to> fight not to sleep.> > I know we
had this discussion> months back- and the> >
conclusion rached back then was> that you simply> >
have to have more horse power to> propel it once
you> > reach a certain speed, no matter> how
aerodynamic> > the plane is--- is that the case
with> this> > prototype I have in mind? Charles> ---
Brian> > Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com> wrote:> >
> > >> > Charles,> > I do have an appreciation for
all things> > that go> > fast. I do know of maybe
aircraft that> > are single> > or dual seat aircraft
capable of that> > speed and easy> > on the fuel,
unfortunately they> > are one of a kind> > aircraft.
One of these is Cory> > Bird's "Symmetry"> > which
probably several people> > have seen at Oskosh. > >
Little yellow airplane. If> > you haven't read the>
> history of the plane it is> > incredible! He spent
a> > couple of years alone> > making the wings as
smooth as> > posible. They> > weren't just smooth
though, there was> > virtually> > no distortion in
the wing, even the> > slightest> > ripple or ridge.
> > > > There's a couple of> > unfortunate problems
with what> > you asked about.> > First, even though
I'm certain the> > guy saw some> > real benefits in
airspeed from that> > kind of> > attention to
detail, most of us aren't that> >> > dedicated and
consider the time put into it versus>> > > the
reward and decide against it. I was writing a>> > >
paper a couple of years back that compared and> >> >
contrasted light sport aircraft for training> >> >
purposes and compared them to 5 popular non-light>
>> > sport aircraft. I compared several performance>
>> > variables between all aircraft. Anyhow, long
story>> > > short one of those was comparing the
engines,> >> > specifically the fuel flow in gph per
horsepower. >> > > All the light sport were pretty
much identical,> >> > which I kind of expected. The
thing I didn't expect>> > > was the higher
horsepower engines and the> > aircraft> > not
limited to light sport speeds also> > had almost> >
the exact same ratio. What this tells> > me is that>
> you can only get so much power out of> > a gallon
of> > gas, no matter how fuel efficient the> >
engine is. > > So, that means we have to compete on>
> the level of> > superior aerodynamics. > > > >
What> > I learned with the Arion project was just
how> >> > important that frontal area of an aircraft
is. If> >> > you notice the Lightning doesn't have
an elevated> >> > seat like in a Cessna 182, you
basically sit on the>> > > floor. It does have a
reclined seat back which> >> > gives even 6 foot 4
guys the ability to have> >> > headroom, but doesn't
vertically stretch out the> >> > cockpit. How much
speed do you think an additional>> > > 6 inches
across the top of the canopy would make?> > > > Well
it's not just the 6 inches vertical, but> > the 40>
> some odd inches horizontal. That's a lot> > of
square> > inch area that would add to the> >
airframe. Now if> > you've ever stuck your hand out>
> the window and held> > it out like a wing and
felt> > it glide on the breeze,> > then turn it
vertical> > against the win and felt the> > force of
resistence,> > then you're starting to> > understand
how just a> > little surface can create a> > huge
amount of drag.> > Another point is that of> >
having a high natural> > laminar flow wing. Now I'm>
> not talking about> > minimizing Induced Drag here,
that> > becomes less> > important as you go faster,
I'm talking> > about the> > mixing of the air caused
by having the> > vortices> > come off of a wing at a
point further> > forward> > than a NLF wing. The NLF
wing can basically> > be> > considered sleeker
because it's not displacing> >> > air as far from
the aircraft as a more inefficient>> > > wing. (Also
the reason why having a balanced> >> >
cross-sectional area on a subsonic aircraft can> >>
> greatly reduce drag) Arion does a pretty good job>
>> > at both, while staying within their mission> >>
> objectives.> > > > Now having said all of that, I>
> have been trying to> > get sponsorship for a
racer> > that should settle in> > around 250-270mph.
My plans> > were to use a modified> > version of a
Jabiru> > engine. The aircraft is an> > Italian
built tandem> > seat plane, that would need> > some
modifications> > including fitting the Jabiru> >
engine. If you're> > interested I could tell you
more> > about this.> > >> > > The problem with that
is that there's absolutely> > no> > idea on the
safety of such an aircraft. In> > racing> > there's
a certain amount of give in safety> > in order> > to
achieve speed. One example is doing> > away with> >
stability in order to achive higher> > speeds. I've>
> talked to the Jabiru engine guys in> > Australia
and> > tried to get an idea of how an> > indipendent
company> > was able to get a whole lot> > more power
out of the> > 3300 than standard. They> > told me
they didn't know> > of that project, but> > gave me
some suggestions. They> > did tell me they> > had a
guy get 140hp out of a very> > slightly> > modified
engine though! Basically the> > highly> > modified
engine was twin turbo and EFI'd> > though.> > It was
a defense contractor so they appear> > to not> >
respond when I try to get specifics. Of> > course> >
the more you get away from the standard> > product>
> the more questionable the longevity of the> >
engine> > is, and therefore is hard to say if it is>
> "Safe".> > > > > > One thing that is true without
having
=== message truncated ===
|
__________________________________________________
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dashvii(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: To Brian W. |
|
|
Charles,
Actually I could believe the Allison Turboprop could run off of unleaded car gas. I remember a guy filling a Lear up with 100LL. They discovered the error and cracked out the manuals and made the determination that they could fly. Said that Lear planned for a 100LL burning jet engine so that if needed it could take on fuel where jet fuel wasn't available. They were checking to see how long they could wanted to run on that mixture though. Guess it burns hot and sooty, reduced time to overhaul engines. I believe that you are probably right about the plane being stalled. I do know that the company still exists though and just last year put out a special aerobatics plane. Brian W.
| Quote: | Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:53:37 -0700
From: cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com
Subject: RE: RE: To Brian W.
To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com
--> Lightning-List message posted by: Charles Dewey <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>
Brian, I get the feeling the Impulse Extreme might be
an abandoned pipe-dream project that never got off the
ground. I noticed in one of the links on their website
the date of 2004- so it has been at least a few
years. They claim the Allison 250 can run off of jet
fuel or unleaded car gas- seems like an unusual
claim... charles
--- Brian Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Charles,
> I don't know any more about the Impulse than what
> is posted. In over a year it doesn't look like the
> site has changed other than adding a pic of their
> Unlimited Aerobatic plane similar to an Extra on the
> front page of the site. Brian W.
>
> > Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:32:22 -0700> From:
> cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Lightning-List:
> RE: To Brian W. // Tom Hoffman> To:
> lightning-list(at)matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List
> message posted by: Charles Dewey
> <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>> > Brian- When will the
> Impulse Extreme be available?> > Tom Hoffman- I
> heard you did a great job with the area> that covers
> the area between the wheel pant and the> fuselage.
> can you explain how you did it? charles> > Charles>
> --- Brian Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com> wrote:>
> > > > > Charles,> > Were you the one that asked
> about a turboprop> > Lightning? Here's a vision of
> what one might look> > like with a turboprop and
> tailwheel and tip tanks. > >>
>
http://www.capco-aviation.be/Impulse%20Gallery/IprobJet.jpg>
> > It is a real aircraft, called the Capco Impulse> >
> Xtreme. It is that! 220knot cruise speed or 270> >
> knot full throttle. 8,000 fpm climb rates and a> >
> fuel burn of 15gph at 220 knots. The stall speed is>
> > 54 knots and takeoff and landing distances are
> about> > like the Lightning. Look through these
> aircraft> > here:> >
> http://www.capco-aviation.be/Impulse%20Aircraft.htm
> > > Scroll down and look at the Impulse Xcite. It
> has> > what I imagine the new flared tips for the
> future> > Lightnings might look like. It features an
> IO-320> > and cruises at 190mph on what I would
> think would be> > around 10 gph. > > > > Personally
> I like that small turboprop. Looks like> > an SF-260
> turboprop, such as here:> >
>
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1003679&size=L>
> > Which is in of itself a development of the Falco.
> > > I would also say that for an aircraft capable
> of> > 300mph the Xtreme is probably the lowest fuel
> that> > you'll find. That Relentless NXT of Kevin's
> is for> > sale now on ebay, opening bid $250k. No
> takers yet.> > He is burning around 30 gph at full
> tilt, and about> > 380mph! The Xcite also gives you
> an idea of what> > it'd take to get a plane of
> roughly the same size> > and shape up to those
> speeds. It has about 300hp> > from a derated Allison
> turboprop. 100hp = 175 mph,> > 300 = 250mph. Also
> notice that 3 times the power> > doesn't equal three
> times the speed. The first> > 200mph come at a
> pretty low power, but the next> > 50-70mph takes 3
> times the power! 3 times the power,> > and also
> notice, three times the fuel burn from 5gph> > -
> 15gph. Still, this is not bad, considering it's> >
> about like a new Bonanza or Mooney. > > > > The
> airplane that I was considering for modification> >
> to a 250mph machine is this one:> >>
>
http://www.millennium-aircraft.com/photogallery.php?id=1&img=images/multimedia/photo/1/DSC_9698T.jpg>
> > I was looking for 250-260mph at full throttle> >
> though. It's a beautiful little tandom seat> >
> aerobatic airplane. It is not as wide as the> >
> Lightning and about the same height cabin, so
> should> > be reduction of frontal area. The wing is
> a high> > speed design. The plane also features a
> built in> > fire suppression system and BRS
> equipped. It's> > capable of 190mph on a 100hp
> Rotax. I think if you> > doubled the power, perhaps
> a little more than double> > it'd do 250mph wide
> open. The modified Jabiru> > engine, reportedly
> capable of 200hp is from the> > "Snark" UAV and can
> be read about here: > >>
>
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://www.gizmag.com.au/go/4785/1/>
> > > > Brian W> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:58
> -0700>> > From: cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RE:>
> > RE: Flying Pencil> To:> >
> lightning-list(at)matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List>
> > message posted by: Charles Dewey> >
> <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>> > Brian, Thanks for the> >
> responses. That is a lot of> great material you> >
> gave. With the hand out the window> example, it> >
> seems like if you had a Jabiru 3300 on a> plane
> that> > had half the height (vertical dimension) of>
> the> > Lightning, was only a one-seater (thus
> narrower),>> > and one would virtually be laying
> down while> > flying;> it would greatly increase
> your> > aerodynamics. It would> truly be a flying
> pencil. It> > seems like these> aerodynamic
> improvements would> > more than make up for> the
> lack of engine brawn, and> > be able to push the>
> plane to 250. It actually> > sounds really
> comfortable> practically lying down> > while flying-
> you would have to> fight not to sleep.> > I know we
> had this discussion> months back- and the> >
> conclusion rached back then was> that you simply> >
> have to have more horse power to> propel it once
> you> > reach a certain speed, no matter> how
> aerodynamic> > the plane is--- is that the case
> with> this> > prototype I have in mind? Charles> ---
> Brian> > Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com> wrote:> >
> > > >> > Charles,> > I do have an appreciation for
> all things> > that go> > fast. I do know of maybe
> aircraft that> > are single> > or dual seat aircraft
> capable of that> > speed and easy> > on the fuel,
> unfortunately they> > are one of a kind> > aircraft.
> One of these is Cory> > Bird's "Symmetry"> > which
> probably several people> > have seen at Oskosh. > >
> Little yellow airplane. If> > you haven't read the>
> > history of the plane it is> > incredible! He spent
> a> > couple of years alone> > making the wings as
> smooth as> > posible. They> > weren't just smooth
> though, there was> > virtually> > no distortion in
> the wing, even the> > slightest> > ripple or ridge.
> > > > > There's a couple of> > unfortunate problems
> with what> > you asked about.> > First, even though
> I'm certain the> > guy saw some> > real benefits in
> airspeed from that> > kind of> > attention to
> detail, most of us aren't that> >> > dedicated and
> consider the time put into it versus>> > > the
> reward and decide against it. I was writing a>> > >
> paper a couple of years back that compared and> >> >
> contrasted light sport aircraft for training> >> >
> purposes and compared them to 5 popular non-light>
> >> > sport aircraft. I compared several performance>
> >> > variables between all aircraft. Anyhow, long
> story>> > > short one of those was comparing the
> engines,> >> > specifically the fuel flow in gph per
> horsepower. >> > > All the light sport were pretty
> much identical,> >> > which I kind of expected. The
> thing I didn't expect>> > > was the higher
> horsepower engines and the> > aircraft> > not
> limited to light sport speeds also> > had almost> >
> the exact same ratio. What this tells> > me is that>
> > you can only get so much power out of> > a gallon
> of> > gas, no matter how fuel efficient the> >
> engine is. > > So, that means we have to compete on>
> > the level of> > superior aerodynamics. > > > >
> What> > I learned with the Arion project was just
> how> >> > important that frontal area of an aircraft
> is. If> >> > you notice the Lightning doesn't have
> an elevated> >> > seat like in a Cessna 182, you
> basically sit on the>> > > floor. It does have a
> reclined seat back which> >> > gives even 6 foot 4
> guys the ability to have> >> > headroom, but doesn't
> vertically stretch out the> >> > cockpit. How much
> speed do you think an additional>> > > 6 inches
> across the top of the canopy would make?> > > > Well
> it's not just the 6 inches vertical, but> > the 40>
> > some odd inches horizontal. That's a lot> > of
> square> > inch area that would add to the> >
> airframe. Now if> > you've ever stuck your hand out>
> > the window and held> > it out like a wing and
> felt> > it glide on the breeze,> > then turn it
> vertical> > against the win and felt the> > force of
> resistence,> > then you're starting to> > understand
> how just a> > little surface can create a> > huge
> amount of drag.> > Another point is that of> >
> having a high natural> > laminar flow wing. Now I'm>
> > not talking about> > minimizing Induced Drag here,
> that> > becomes less> > important as you go faster,
> I'm talking> > about the> > mixing of the air caused
> by having the> > vortices> > come off of a wing at a
> point further> > forward> > than a NLF wing. The NLF
> wing can basically> > be> > considered sleeker
> because it's not displacing> >> > air as far from
> the aircraft as a more inefficient>> > > wing. (Also
> the reason why having a balanced> >> >
> cross-sectional area on a subsonic aircraft can> >>
> > greatly reduce drag) Arion does a pretty good job>
> >> > at both, while staying within their mission> >>
> > objectives.> > > > Now having said all of that, I>
> > have been trying to> > get sponsorship for a
> racer> > that should settle in> > around 250-270mph.
> My plans> > were to use a modified> > version of a
> Jabiru> > engine. The aircraft is an> > Italian
> built tandem> > seat plane, that would need> > some
> modifications> > including fitting the Jabiru> >
> engine. If you're> > interested I could tell you
> more> > about this.> > >> > > The problem with that
> is that there's absolutely> > no> > idea on the
> safety of such an aircraft. In> > racing> > there's
> a certain amount of give in safety> > in order> > to
> achieve speed. One example is doing> > away with> >
> stability in order to achive higher> > speeds. I've>
> > talked to the Jabiru engine guys in> > Australia
> and> > tried to get an idea of how an> > indipendent
> company> > was able to get a whole lot> > more power
> out of the> > 3300 than standard. They> > told me
> they didn't know> > of that project, but> > gave me
> some suggestions. They> > did tell me they> > had a
> guy get 140hp out of a very> > slightly> > modified
> engine though! Basically the> > highly> > modified
> engine was twin turbo and EFI'd> > though.> > It was
> a defense contractor so they appear> > to not> >
> respond when I try to get specifics. Of> > course> >
> the more you get away from the standard> > product>
> > the more questionable the longevity of the> >
> engine> > is, and therefore is hard to say if it is>
> > "Safe".> > > > > > One thing that is true without
> having
=== message truncated ===
_________________==========
|
Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCa_cid=wl_hotmailnews' target='_new'>Try now! [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Lightning-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
