Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Rocket-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

smokyray(at)rocketmail.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Guys,

More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the capabilities of this little machine. Coming home from Dallas post-Christmas I looked at forecast winds and thought I would try to one hop it home, nearly 800NM and really get some efficiency numbers. With 54 gallons of 100LL on board( 10 gallon aux tanks) I launched, cruise climbed to 11,500 and after letting my Ly-Con built IO-540 with GAMI injectors settle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees LOP and 33 degrees advance on my EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I consistently showed 10.4 GPH at 235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being a Saturday and knowing the Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to home, straight over the Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500 increasing my GS to 252 knots retaining the same FF. When I finally began my descent into the swamp I  still had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board, landing on my 1500 ft grass strip with 16 gallons left.   My Rocket is definitely not the fastest on the block with my oversize tires, caked mud and large tailwheel dragging in the breeze, but it truly shows what John's design is capable of. 



BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I flew over the house, looking forward to several thousand more!

Rob "Smokey" Ray

HR2



--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

From: nico css <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>

Subject: FW: What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?(MWH)

To: "'nico'" <nico(at)nicsysco.com>

Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:29 PM



--> Rocket-List  message posted by: "nico css" <[url=/mc/compose?to=nico(at)cybersuperstore.com]nico(at)cybersuperstore.com[/url]>



What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?



Brian Shul, Retired SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.



As a former SR-71 pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question

I'm most often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be assured of

hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's an

interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed, but there

really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always give you a little

more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to see 35 miles a minute.



Because we flew a programmed Mach number on most missions, and never wanted

to harm the plane in any way, we never let it run out to any limits of

temperature or speed. Thus, each SR-71 pilot had his own  individual "high"

speed that he saw at some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when

Khadafy fired two missiles my way, and max power was in order.



Let's just say that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to

Mach numbers we hadn't previously seen.



So it was with great surprise, when at the end of one of my presentations,

someone asked, "what was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"



This was a first. 



After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I had never

shared before, and relayed the following.



I was flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England, with my back-seater,

Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over Europe and the Iron

Curtain when we received a radio transmission from home base. As we scooted

across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the

English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air  cadet commander

there was a former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating

moment for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach. No

problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling over the

North Sea, we proceeded to find the small airfield. 



Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the back seat,

and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to subsonic speeds, we

found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a slight haze. Like most

former WWII British airfields, the one we were looking for had a small tower

and little surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were close and that

I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as

far as I could see in the haze. 



We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we

were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable.  Walt

said we were practically over the field-yet; there was nothing in my

windscreen. I banked the jet and started a gentle circling maneuver in hopes

of picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet

commander had taken the cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to

get a prime view of the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and

partial gray overcast.



Walter continued to give me indications that the field should be below us

but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it. The longer we continued to

peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the

awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors in my flying

career, as something told me I better cross-check the gauges.



As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped

and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At  this

point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank. 



Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a thunderous roar of

flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the aircraft fell into full view

of the shocked observers on the tower. Shattering the still quiet of that

morning, they now had 107 feet of fire-breathing titanium in their face as

the plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the

infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be described as

some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass.



Quickly reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Mildenhall without

incident. We didn't say a word for those next 14 minutes.



After landing, our commander greeted us, and we were both certain he was

reaching for our wings. Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the

commander had told him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever  seen,

especially how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that could

only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the cadet's hats

were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the plane in full

afterburner dropping right in front of them was unbelievable. 



Walt and I both understood the concept of "breathtaking" very well that

morning, and sheepishly replied that they were just excited to see our low

approach.

As we retired to the equipment room to change from space suits to flight

suits, we just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass." 



Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots.  What

did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred fifty-two."



We sat in silence for a moment. Then Walt said, "Don't ever do that to me

again!" 



And I never did.



A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the  Mildenhall Officer's

club, and overheard an officer talking to some cadets about an SR-71

fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course, by now the story included kids

falling off the tower and screaming as the heat of the jet singed their

eyebrows. 



Noticing our HABU patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands,

he asked us to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred. 

Walt just shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine low

approach; they're pretty impressive in that plane."



Impressive indeed.



Little did I realize after relaying this experience to my audience that day

that it would become one of the most popular and most requested stories.

It's ironic that people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet

can fly. Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to keep

that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up, too.

 nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List

_sp; --> h            - List Contribution Web Site;                     &nb; http:========================





	


         [quote][b]

jrstone(at)insightbb.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:13 pm Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Nice!!

 Jim Stone

 Louisville

 [quote]   ---

Lee Logan

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 86

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:00 pm Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Great report, Smokey.  An amazing airplane, indeed!



Lee...



P.S. Festus and his gang spent the holidays with us.  Spun him around the field in my F1, had a great time!

  [quote][b]

andrew(at)nzactive.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:03 pm Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of  different aircraft, but nothing, NOTHING, can  touch my Rocket. Except  another Rocket, and some of you guys seem to have slightly faster ones than I do  - I true out at max cruise (2500 rpm, max throttle, 5000-10,000 feet)  at exactly 200 knots, and I've heard some people true out at 205, even 210?  Is that true, anyone?

  

 And as you say the speed/economy equation is extraordinary  - not to mention, the pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL capabilities  too.

  

 Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that  the best economy comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal  friction of the engine. I wonder if you would have got even better figures at,  say, 22" MP and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit is, for your  engine...? I believe that is the main "trick" that Lindbergh taught the aviators  of the US Navy & Marine Corps in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was  sent over to teach them to get maximum range and endurance from their  steeds.

  

 not trying to argue, just thought I'd mention it. Your  basic point - that rockets rock - is pretty indisputable I reckon  

  

 Andrew



   From: owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob  Ray

Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 AM

To:  rocket-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Rocket Efficiency,  Defined!

 

                   Guys,

More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the        capabilities of this little machine. Coming home from Dallas        post-Christmas I looked at forecast winds and thought I would try to one        hop it home, nearly 800NM and really get some efficiency numbers. With 54        gallons of 100LL on board( 10 gallon aux tanks) I launched, cruise climbed        to 11,500 and after letting my Ly-Con built IO-540 with GAMI injectors        settle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees LOP and 33 degrees advance on my        EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I consistently showed 10.4 GPH at        235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being a Saturday and knowing the        Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to home, straight over the        Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500 increasing my GS to 252        knots retaining the same FF. When I finally began my descent into the        swamp I still had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board, landing on my 1500        ft grass strip with 16 gallons left.           My Rocket is definitely not the fastest on the block with        my oversize tires, caked mud and large tailwheel dragging in the breeze,        but it truly shows what John's design is capable of. 

       

       BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I flew over the        house, looking forward to several thousand more!

       



       Rob "Smokey" Ray

       HR2



--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css        <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> wrote:

        	  Quote: 	
		  

From:          nico css <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>

Subject: FW:          What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?(MWH)

To: "'nico'"          <nico(at)nicsysco.com>

Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:29          PM



         --> Rocket-List message posted by: "nico css"          <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com (nico(at)cybersuperstore.com)>



What          was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?



Brian Shul, Retired          SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.



As a former SR-71          pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question

I'm most          often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be assured          of

hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's          an

interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed,          but there

really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always          give you a little

more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to          see 35 miles a minute.



Because we flew a programmed Mach number          on most missions, and never wanted

to harm the plane in any way, we          never let it run out to any limits of

temperature or speed. Thus,          each SR-71 pilot had his own individual "high"

speed that he saw at          some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when

Khadafy fired          two missiles my way, and max power was in order.



Let's just say          that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to

Mach          numbers we hadn't previously seen.



So it was with great surprise,          when at the end of one of my presentations,

someone asked, "what was          the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"



This was a first.          



After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I          had never

shared before, and relayed the following.



I was          flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England, with my          back-seater,

Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over          Europe and the Iron

Curtain when we received a radio transmission          from home base. As we scooted

across Denmark in three minutes, we          learned that a small RAF base in the

English countryside had          requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet commander

there was a          former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating

moment          for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach.          No

problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling          over the

North Sea, we proceeded to find the small airfield.          



Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the          back seat,

and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to          subsonic speeds, we

found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a          slight haze. Like most

former WWII British airfields, the one we were          looking for had a small tower

and little surrounding infrastructure.          Walter told me we were close and that

I should be able to see the          field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as

far as I could see in          the haze. 



We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back          from 325 knots we

were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was          just uncomfortable. Walt

said we were practically over the field-yet;          there was nothing in my

windscreen. I banked the jet and started a          gentle circling maneuver in hopes

of picking up anything that looked          like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet

commander had taken the          cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to

get a prime view of          the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and

partial gray          overcast.



Walter continued to give me indications that the field          should be below us

but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it.          The longer we continued to

peer out the window and circle, the slower          we got. With our power back, the

awaiting cadets heard nothing. I          must have had good instructors in my flying

career, as something told          me I better cross-check the gauges.



As I noticed the airspeed          indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped

and my          adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At          this

point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight          bank. 



Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a          thunderous roar of

flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the          aircraft fell into full view

of the shocked observers on the tower.          Shattering the still quiet of that

morning, they now had 107 feet of          fire-breathing titanium in their face as

the plane leveled and          accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the

infield, closer          than expected, maintaining what could only be described as

some sort          of ultimate knife-edge pass.



Quickly reaching the field boundary,          we proceeded back to Mildenhall without

incident. We didn't say a          word for those next 14 minutes.



After landing, our commander          greeted us, and we were both certain he was

reaching for our wings.          Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the

commander had told          him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever seen,

especially          how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that          could

only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the          cadet's hats

were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the          plane in full

afterburner dropping right in front of them was          unbelievable. 



Walt and I both understood the concept of          "breathtaking" very well that

morning, and sheepishly replied that          they were just excited to see our low

approach.

As we retired to          the equipment room to change from space suits to flight

suits, we          just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass."          



Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six          knots.  What

did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered,          "One hundred fifty-two."



We sat in silence for a moment. Then          Walt said, "Don't ever do that to me

again!" 



And I never          did.



A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the          Mildenhall Officer's

club, and overheard an officer talking to some          cadets about an SR-71

fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course,          by now the story included kids

falling off the tower and screaming as          the heat of the jet singed their

eyebrows. 



Noticing our HABU          patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands,

he asked us          to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred. 

Walt just          shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine          low

approach; they're pretty impressive in that          plane."



Impressive indeed.



Little did I realize after          relaying this experience to my audience that day

that it would become          one of the most popular and most requested stories.

It's ironic that          people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet

can fly.          Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to          keep

that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up,          too.

nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List

_sp; -->          h                     - List Contribution Web Site;                              &nb;          http:========================





	


[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:01 pm Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

From what I know, the better fuel economy at lower RPM's is  due to less air being pumped per minute. Theoretically, an engine working at  1,000 rpm as apposed to 3,000 rpm, just as an example, pumps 1/3rd of the air,  which has a greater impact on the fuel burn even at higher mixture settings due  to higher MP's. The net gain is positive at lower RPM's. There would be, I  assume, an envelope in which that is true, in theory. 

  

 Just my 2c worth. 

  

 Nico

  



   From: owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ACTIVE NZ -  Andrew

Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:01 PM

To:  rocket-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Rocket Efficiency,  Defined!

 

 Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of different  aircraft, but nothing, NOTHING, can  touch my Rocket. Except another  Rocket, and some of you guys seem to have slightly faster ones than I do -  I true out at max cruise (2500 rpm, max throttle, 5000-10,000 feet) at  exactly 200 knots, and I've heard some people true out at 205, even 210? Is  that true, anyone?

  

 And as you say the speed/economy equation is extraordinary -  not to mention, the pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL capabilities  too.

  

 Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that the  best economy comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal  friction of the engine. I wonder if you would have got even better figures at,  say, 22" MP and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit is, for your  engine...? I believe that is the main "trick" that Lindbergh taught the aviators  of the US Navy & Marine Corps in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was  sent over to teach them to get maximum range and endurance from their  steeds.

  

 not trying to argue, just thought I'd mention it. Your basic  point - that rockets rock - is pretty indisputable I reckon  

  

 Andrew



   From: owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob  Ray

Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 AM

To:  rocket-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Rocket Efficiency,  Defined!

 

                   Guys,

More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the        capabilities of this little machine. Coming home from Dallas        post-Christmas I looked at forecast winds and thought I would try to one        hop it home, nearly 800NM and really get some efficiency numbers. With 54        gallons of 100LL on board( 10 gallon aux tanks) I launched, cruise climbed        to 11,500 and after letting my Ly-Con built IO-540 with GAMI injectors        settle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees LOP and 33 degrees advance on my        EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I consistently showed 10.4 GPH at        235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being a Saturday and knowing the        Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to home, straight over the        Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500 increasing my GS to 252        knots retaining the same FF. When I finally began my descent into the        swamp I still had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board, landing on my 1500        ft grass strip with 16 gallons left.           My Rocket is definitely not the fastest on the block with        my oversize tires, caked mud and large tailwheel dragging in the breeze,        but it truly shows what John's design is capable of. 

       

       BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I flew over the        house, looking forward to several thousand more!

       



       Rob "Smokey" Ray

       HR2



--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css        <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com> wrote:

        	  Quote: 	
		  

From:          nico css <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>

Subject: FW:          What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?(MWH)

To: "'nico'"          <nico(at)nicsysco.com>

Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:29          PM



         --> Rocket-List message posted by: "nico css"          <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com (nico(at)cybersuperstore.com)>



What          was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?



Brian Shul, Retired          SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.



As a former SR-71          pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question

I'm most          often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be assured          of

hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's          an

interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed,          but there

really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always          give you a little

more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to          see 35 miles a minute.



Because we flew a programmed Mach number          on most missions, and never wanted

to harm the plane in any way, we          never let it run out to any limits of

temperature or speed. Thus,          each SR-71 pilot had his own individual "high"

speed that he saw at          some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when

Khadafy fired          two missiles my way, and max power was in order.



Let's just say          that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to

Mach          numbers we hadn't previously seen.



So it was with great surprise,          when at the end of one of my presentations,

someone asked, "what was          the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"



This was a first.          



After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I          had never

shared before, and relayed the following.



I was          flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England, with my          back-seater,

Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over          Europe and the Iron

Curtain when we received a radio transmission          from home base. As we scooted

across Denmark in three minutes, we          learned that a small RAF base in the

English countryside had          requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet commander

there was a          former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating

moment          for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach.          No

problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling          over the

North Sea, we proceeded to find the small airfield.          



Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the          back seat,

and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to          subsonic speeds, we

found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a          slight haze. Like most

former WWII British airfields, the one we were          looking for had a small tower

and little surrounding infrastructure.          Walter told me we were close and that

I should be able to see the          field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as

far as I could see in          the haze. 



We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back          from 325 knots we

were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was          just uncomfortable. Walt

said we were practically over the field-yet;          there was nothing in my

windscreen. I banked the jet and started a          gentle circling maneuver in hopes

of picking up anything that looked          like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet

commander had taken the          cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to

get a prime view of          the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and

partial gray          overcast.



Walter continued to give me indications that the field          should be below us

but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it.          The longer we continued to

peer out the window and circle, the slower          we got. With our power back, the

awaiting cadets heard nothing. I          must have had good instructors in my flying

career, as something told          me I better cross-check the gauges.



As I noticed the airspeed          indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped

and my          adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At          this

point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight          bank. 



Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a          thunderous roar of

flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the          aircraft fell into full view

of the shocked observers on the tower.          Shattering the still quiet of that

morning, they now had 107 feet of          fire-breathing titanium in their face as

the plane leveled and          accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the

infield, closer          than expected, maintaining what could only be described as

some sort          of ultimate knife-edge pass.



Quickly reaching the field boundary,          we proceeded back to Mildenhall without

incident. We didn't say a          word for those next 14 minutes.



After landing, our commander          greeted us, and we were both certain he was

reaching for our wings.          Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the

commander had told          him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever seen,

especially          how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that          could

only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the          cadet's hats

were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the          plane in full

afterburner dropping right in front of them was          unbelievable. 



Walt and I both understood the concept of          "breathtaking" very well that

morning, and sheepishly replied that          they were just excited to see our low

approach.

As we retired to          the equipment room to change from space suits to flight

suits, we          just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass."          



Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six          knots.  What

did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered,          "One hundred fifty-two."



We sat in silence for a moment. Then          Walt said, "Don't ever do that to me

again!" 



And I never          did.



A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the          Mildenhall Officer's

club, and overheard an officer talking to some          cadets about an SR-71

fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course,          by now the story included kids

falling off the tower and screaming as          the heat of the jet singed their

eyebrows. 



Noticing our HABU          patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands,

he asked us          to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred. 

Walt just          shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine          low

approach; they're pretty impressive in that          plane."



Impressive indeed.



Little did I realize after          relaying this experience to my audience that day

that it would become          one of the most popular and most requested stories.

It's ironic that          people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet

can fly.          Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to          keep

that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up,          too.

nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List

_sp; -->          h                     - List Contribution Web Site;                              &nb;          http:========================





	


[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c





href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

[b]

fairlea(at)amtelecom.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:11 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Andrew  

            I have been flying rockets for twelve years now and have been fortunate to have flown many different versions.  All of them fly beautifully and I can honestly say that if I had to go back to other types of aircraft I probably would not fly very much.  The last three years I have participated in a few events held by the Sport Aircraft Racing League, SARL, http://sportairrace.org/index.html .  It has been a real learning experience and with constant experimentation I have increased the top speed of my aircraft considerably.  The average top speed, full power, in three races this year was 220.2 knots.  This was full throttle, 2650rpms.  

In the same three races Wayne Hadath with a stock engine, and a clean light stock F1 had a 212 knot average.  The fastest RV8 is currently owned by John Huft, and he is right around the 200 knot range with his beautiful aircraft.  

I would encourage other rocket owners to participate in these events, experiment with your aircraft and find some different ways to get these amazing aircraft even faster.  With gains in top speed, comes gains in efficiency which you will use on each and every flight.    

   

Tom Martin  

         

  

From: owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ACTIVE NZ - Andrew

 Sent: January 8, 2010 1:01 AM

 To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!  

  

   

Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of different aircraft, but nothing, NOTHING, can  touch my Rocket. Except another Rocket, and some of you guys seem to have slightly faster ones than I do - I true out at max cruise (2500 rpm, max throttle, 5000-10,000 feet) at exactly 200 knots, and I've heard some people true out at 205, even 210? Is that true, anyone?  

   

And as you say the speed/economy equation is extraordinary - not to mention, the pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL capabilities too.  

   

Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that the best economy comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal friction of the engine. I wonder if you would have got even better figures at, say, 22" MP and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit is, for your engine...? I believe that is the main "trick" that Lindbergh taught the aviators of the US Navy & Marine Corps in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was sent over to teach them to get maximum range and endurance from their steeds.  

   

not trying to argue, just thought I'd mention it. Your basic point - that rockets rock - is pretty indisputable I reckon   

   

Andrew  

       

  

From: owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ray

 Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 AM

 To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!             

Guys,   

   

More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the   capabilities of this little machine. Coming home from Dallas post-Christmas I looked at forecast   winds and thought I would try to one hop it home, nearly 800NM and really get   some efficiency numbers. With 54 gallons of 100LL on board( 10 gallon aux   tanks) I launched, cruise climbed to 11,500 and after letting my Ly-Con built   IO-540 with GAMI injectors settle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees LOP and   33 degrees advance on my EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I   consistently showed 10.4 GPH at 235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being a   Saturday and knowing the Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to   home, straight over the Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500   increasing my GS to 252 knots retaining the same FF. When I finally began my   descent into the swamp I still had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board,   landing on my 1500 ft grass strip with 16 gallons left.        

  My Rocket is definitely not the fastest   on the block with my oversize tires, caked mud and large tailwheel dragging   in the breeze, but it truly shows what John's design is capable of.    

      

       

BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I   flew over the house, looking forward to several thousand more!   

      

    

      

Rob "Smokey" Ray   

      

HR2

   

   --- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>   wrote:   



   From: nico css <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com>

   Subject: FW: What was the slowest you ever flew the   Blackbird?(MWH)

   To: "'nico'" <nico(at)nicsysco.com>

   Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:29 PM      

--> Rocket-List message posted by: "nico   css" <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com (nico(at)cybersuperstore.com)>

   

   What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?

   

   Brian Shul, Retired SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.

   

   As a former SR-71 pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question

   I'm most often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be   assured of

   hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's an

   interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed, but there

   really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always give you a little

   more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to see 35 miles a minute.

   

   Because we flew a programmed Mach number on most missions, and never wanted

   to harm the plane in any way, we never let it run out to any limits of

   temperature or speed. Thus, each SR-71 pilot had his own individual   "high"

   speed that he saw at some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when

   Khadafy fired two missiles my way, and max power was in order.

   

   Let's just say that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to

   Mach numbers we hadn't previously seen.

   

   So it was with great surprise, when at the end of one of my presentations,

   someone asked, "what was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"

   

   This was a first. 

   

   After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I had never

   shared before, and relayed the following.

   

   I was flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England, with my back-seater,

   Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over Europe   and the Iron

   Curtain when we received a radio transmission from home base. As we scooted

   across Denmark   in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the

   English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet commander

   there was a former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating

   moment for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach. No

   problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling over the

 North Sea, we proceeded to find the small   airfield. 

   

   Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the back seat,

   and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to subsonic speeds, we

   found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a slight haze. Like most

   former WWII British airfields, the one we were looking for had a small tower

   and little surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were close and that

   I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as

   far as I could see in the haze. 

   

   We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we

   were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable. Walt

   said we were practically over the field-yet; there was nothing in my

   windscreen. I banked the jet and started a gentle circling maneuver in hopes

   of picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet

   commander had taken the cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to

   get a prime view of the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and

   partial gray overcast.

   

   Walter continued to give me indications that the field should be below us

   but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it. The longer we continued to

   peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the

   awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors in my flying

   career, as something told me I better cross-check the gauges.

   

   As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped

   and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At this

   point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank. 

   

   Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a thunderous roar of

   flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the aircraft fell into full view

   of the shocked observers on the tower. Shattering the still quiet of that

   morning, they now had 107 feet of fire-breathing titanium in their face as

   the plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the

   infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be described as

   some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass.

   

   Quickly reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Mildenhall without

   incident. We didn't say a word for those next 14 minutes.

   

   After landing, our commander greeted us, and we were both certain he was

   reaching for our wings. Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the

   commander had told him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever seen,

   especially how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that could

   only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the cadet's hats

   were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the plane in full

   afterburner dropping right in front of them was unbelievable. 

   

   Walt and I both understood the concept of "breathtaking" very well   that

   morning, and sheepishly replied that they were just excited to see our low

   approach.

   As we retired to the equipment room to change from space suits to flight

   suits, we just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass." 

   

   Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six   knots.  What

   did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred   fifty-two."

   

   We sat in silence for a moment. Then Walt said, "Don't ever do that to   me

   again!" 

   

   And I never did.

   

   A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the Mildenhall Officer's

   club, and overheard an officer talking to some cadets about an SR-71

   fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course, by now the story included kids

   falling off the tower and screaming as the heat of the jet singed their

   eyebrows. 

   

   Noticing our HABU patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands,

   he asked us to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred. 

   Walt just shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine low

   approach; they're pretty impressive in that plane."

   

   Impressive indeed.

   

   Little did I realize after relaying this experience to my audience that day

   that it would become one of the most popular and most requested stories.

   It's ironic that people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet

   can fly. Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to keep

   that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up, too.

   nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List

   _sp; --> h              - List Contribution Web Site;                         &nb; http:========================

   

   

   

   

      

   

   

   

         

    	  Quote: 	
		    href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-Listhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution 	


     Checked by AVG.  

  Checked by AVG.

smokyray(at)rocketmail.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

G'day Andy,

  I too am a big fan of Charles Lindberg and will have to test his P-38 leaning technique sometime. When I knock around here locally I set 20/20 below 5000 ft msl and nomalky show 6 gph at 125 knots, counting the big Hartzell blades as they pass by:) Even more amazing is comparing my RV4 fuel logs from the past on identical trips with the HR2, equal or less at 30 knots faster!

Smokey



Sent from my iPhone



On Jan 8, 2010, at 1:00 AM, "ACTIVE NZ - Andrew" <andrew(at)nzactive.com (andrew(at)nzactive.com)> wrote:



[quote]  Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of  different aircraft, but nothing, NOTHING, can  touch my Rocket. Except  another Rocket, and some of you guys seem to have slightly faster ones than I do  - I true out at max cruise (2500 rpm, max throttle, 5000-10,000 feet)  at exactly 200 knots, and I've heard some people true out at 205, even 210?  Is that true, anyone?

  

 And as you say the speed/economy equation is extraordinary  - not to mention, the pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL capabilities  too.

  

 Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that  the best economy comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal  friction of the engine. I wonder if you would have got even better figures at,  say, 22" MP and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit is, for your  engine...? I believe that is the main "trick" that Lindbergh taught the aviators  of the US Navy & Marine Corps in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was  sent over to teach them to get maximum range and endurance from their  steeds.

  

 not trying to argue, just thought I'd mention it. Your  basic point - that rockets rock - is pretty indisputable I reckon  

  

 Andrew



   From: owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com)  [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob  Ray

Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 AM

To:  [url=mailto:rocket-list(at)matronics.com]rocket-list(at)matronics.com (rocket-list(at)matronics.com)[/url]

Subject: Rocket Efficiency,  Defined!

 

                   Guys,

More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the        capabilities of this little machine. Coming home from Dallas        post-Christmas I looked at forecast winds and thought I would try to one        hop it home, nearly 800NM and really get some efficiency numbers. With 54        gallons of 100LL on board( 10 gallon aux tanks) I launched, cruise climbed        to 11,500 and after letting my Ly-Con built IO-540 with GAMI injectors        settle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees LOP and 33 degrees advance on my        EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I consistently showed 10.4 GPH at        235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being a Saturday and knowing the        Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to home, straight over the        Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500 increasing my GS to 252        knots retaining the same FF. When I finally began my descent into the        swamp I still had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board, landing on my 1500        ft grass strip with 16 gallons left.           My Rocket is definitely not the fastest on the block with        my oversize tires, caked mud and large tailwheel dragging in the breeze,        but it truly shows what John's design is capable of. 

       

       BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I flew over the        house, looking forward to several thousand more!

       



       Rob "Smokey" Ray

       HR2



--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css        <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com (nico(at)cybersuperstore.com)> wrote:

        	  Quote: 	
		  

From:          nico css <nico(at)cybersuperstore.com (nico(at)cybersuperstore.com)>

Subject: FW:          What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?(MWH)

To: "'nico'"          <nico(at)nicsysco.com (nico(at)nicsysco.com)>

Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:29          PM



         --> Rocket-List message posted by: "nico css"          <[url=mailto:nico(at)cybersuperstore.com]nico(at)cybersuperstore.com (nico(at)cybersuperstore.com)[/url]>



What          was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?



Brian Shul, Retired          SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.



As a former SR-71          pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question

I'm most          often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be assured          of

hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's          an

interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed,          but there

really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always          give you a little

more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to          see 35 miles a minute.



Because we flew a programmed Mach number          on most missions, and never wanted

to harm the plane in any way, we          never let it run out to any limits of

temperature or speed. Thus,          each SR-71 pilot had his own individual "high"

speed that he saw at          some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when

Khadafy fired          two missiles my way, and max power was in order.



Let's just say          that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to

Mach          numbers we hadn't previously seen.



So it was with great surprise,          when at the end of one of my presentations,

someone asked, "what was          the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"



This was a first.          



After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I          had never

shared before, and relayed the following.



I was          flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England, with my          back-seater,

Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over          Europe and the Iron

Curtain when we received a radio transmission          from home base. As we scooted

across Denmark in three minutes, we          learned that a small RAF base in the

English countryside had          requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet commander

there was a          former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating

moment          for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach.          No

problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling          over the

North Sea, we proceeded to find the small airfield.          



Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the          back seat,

and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to          subsonic speeds, we

found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a          slight haze. Like most

former WWII British airfields, the one we were          looking for had a small tower

and little surrounding infrastructure.          Walter told me we were close and that

I should be able to see the          field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as

far as I could see in          the haze. 



We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back          from 325 knots we

were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was          just uncomfortable. Walt

said we were practically over the field-yet;          there was nothing in my

windscreen. I banked the jet and started a          gentle circling maneuver in hopes

of picking up anything that looked          like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet

commander had taken the          cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to

get a prime view of          the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and

partial gray          overcast.



Walter continued to give me indications that the field          should be below us

but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it.          The longer we continued to

peer out the window and circle, the slower          we got. With our power back, the

awaiting cadets heard nothing. I          must have had good instructors in my flying

career, as something told          me I better cross-check the gauges.



As I noticed the airspeed          indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped

and my          adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At          this

point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight          bank. 



Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a          thunderous roar of

flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the          aircraft fell into full view

of the shocked observers on the tower.          Shattering the still quiet of that

morning, they now had 107 feet of          fire-breathing titanium in their face as

the plane leveled and          accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the

infield, closer          than expected, maintaining what could only be described as

some sort          of ultimate knife-edge pass.



Quickly reaching the field boundary,          we proceeded back to Mildenhall without

incident. We didn't say a          word for those next 14 minutes.



After landing, our commander          greeted us, and we were both certain he was

reaching for our wings.          Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the

commander had told          him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever seen,

especially          how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that          could

only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the          cadet's hats

were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the          plane in full

afterburner dropping right in front of them was          unbelievable. 



Walt and I both understood the concept of          "breathtaking" very well that

morning, and sheepishly replied that          they were just excited to see our low

approach.

As we retired to          the equipment room to change from space suits to flight

suits, we          just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass."          



Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six          knots.  What

did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered,          "One hundred fifty-two."



We sat in silence for a moment. Then          Walt said, "Don't ever do that to me

again!" 



And I never          did.



A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the          Mildenhall Officer's

club, and overheard an officer talking to some          cadets about an SR-71

fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course,          by now the story included kids

falling off the tower and screaming as          the heat of the jet singed their

eyebrows. 



Noticing our HABU          patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands,

he asked us          to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred. 

Walt just          shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine          low

approach; they're pretty impressive in that          plane."



Impressive indeed.



Little did I realize after          relaying this experience to my audience that day

that it would become          one of the most popular and most requested stories.

It's ironic that          people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet

can fly.          Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to          keep

that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up,          too.

nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List

_sp; -->          h                     - List Contribution Web Site;                              &nb;          http:========================





[/url] 	
[url=http://www.matronics.com/contribution]

[/url]

[url=http://www.matronics.com/contribution]

 	  Quote: 	
		  



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c



	


[b]

smokyray(at)rocketmail.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:45 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Awesome!



Sent from my iPhone



On Jan 7, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Lee Logan <leeloganster(at)gmail.com (leeloganster(at)gmail.com)> wrote:



[quote]Great report, Smokey.  An amazing airplane, indeed!



Lee...



P.S. Festus and his gang spent the holidays with us.  Spun him around the field in my F1, had a great time!

   	  Quote: 	
		  

	


[b]

mcculleyja(at)starpower.n
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

I have found that the low RPM cruise choice does exactly what you have 

described, primarily due to lower internal engine friction and somewhat 

higher prop efficiency due to greater prop blade efficiency. Possibly, 

the lower piston speed during the power stroke may provide more complete 

combustion, particularly with slightly advanced ignition timing.



I regularly fly cruise at 1900 RPM and anything up to 22 or 23 inches 

MAP depending on altitude and temperature with my LYC O-360 and Hartzell 

constant speed prop. And with lean of peak operation I get up to 29-30 

miles per gallon. In some cases, this allows non-stop flights that take 

less flight time than the total elapsed time required by going faster 

and having to make an enroute fuel stop. This is a winner on fuel costs, 

time, and extended TBO possibilities!



Jim McCulley

================================================================================



ACTIVE NZ - Andrew wrote:   ((SNIP))

 	  Quote: 	
		   Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that the best 

 economy comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal 

 friction of the engine. I wonder if you would have got even better 

 figures at, say, 22" MP and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit 

 is, for your engine...? I believe that is the main "trick" that 

 Lindbergh taught the aviators of the US Navy & Marine Corps in the 

 Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was sent over to teach them to get 

 maximum range and endurance from their steeds.  ((SNIP))

==================================================================================

andrew(at)nzactive.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:52 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Nice info, y'all.

 

 Unfortunately, being in NZ, I can't participate in these sorts of things. Only two Rockets flying in NZ, that I know of - and another being built.

 

 I'd love to get another 10 knots or so out of my Rocket. I've noticed that she flies with a LOT of down elevator (ie, forward stick) in the cruise, and have wondered about resetting the incidence of the tail plane. She also needs a little left aileron to fly straight, and this means both ailerons are always *slightly* defected. Are these sorts of things likely to rob serious speed? (As in, I don't care about 1-2 knots, but 10 or so, and I'd do something about it.

 

 Would also be interested in the perspective of knowledgeable builder pilots - I've heard of at least one Rocket fatality where the tail came apart, and I'm told Mr Vans disapproves of our aircraft cos they're being pushed beyond design limits. Is there anything in this? As in, would it be worth dismantaling the horizontal and vertical stabs, and rebuilding with thicker gauge steel? I know it's a big job.

 

 Any 'easy' ideas for speeding up Rockets? I've got 280 hp, and she's reasonably light, but does have some avionics of course. Not too many aerials etc. Feel free to contact off list - andrew at activenewzealand dot com.

 

 Cheers

 

 Andrew

 

 

 --

ernest(at)flmitigation.co
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:53 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Hey Andrew,

 

 I didn’t build my Rocket and am not inclined in that way so have not input to your questions.  I did want to say that I have the same issues with my Rocket, I have pretty much full down elevator in cruise, and my plane is left wing heavy, I have been trying to figure out a way to get the wing issue worked out, nothing good yet.  Haven’t gone into the tail issue but have wondered how much speed I am loosing, I am sure it is substantial.

 

 Looking forward to the answers.

 

 Ernest

 N540HB

 

 

 On 1/9/10 3:27 AM, "ACTIVE NZ - Andrew" <[url=andrew(at)nzactive.com]andrew(at)nzactive.com[/url]> wrote:

 

 [quote]Nice info, y'all.

 

 Unfortunately, being in NZ, I can't participate in these sorts of things. Only two Rockets flying in NZ, that I know of - and another being built.

 

 I'd love to get another 10 knots or so out of my Rocket. I've noticed that she flies with a LOT of down elevator (ie, forward stick) in the cruise, and have wondered about resetting the incidence of the tail plane. She also needs a little left aileron to fly straight, and this means both ailerons are always *slightly* defected. Are these sorts of things likely to rob serious speed? (As in, I don't care about 1-2 knots, but 10 or so, and I'd do something about it.

 

 Would also be interested in the perspective of knowledgeable builder pilots - I've heard of at least one Rocket fatality where the tail came apart, and I'm told Mr Vans disapproves of our aircraft cos they're being pushed beyond design limits. Is there anything in this? As in, would it be worth dismantaling the horizontal and vertical stabs, and rebuilding with thicker gauge steel? I know it's a big job.

 

 Any 'easy' ideas for speeding up Rockets? I've got 280 hp, and she's reasonably light, but does have some avionics of course. Not too many aerials etc. Feel free to contact off list - andrew at activenewzealand dot com.

 

 Cheers

 

 Andrew

 

 

 --

jrstone(at)insightbb.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Tom and others,

 Have you ever noticed your Rocket yaws when you fly  into the clouds.  I got significant vertigo the first few times I went IMC  and then figured out why.  I noticed as I flew into the clouds my inner ear  sensed a 30 deg left bank but the aircraft remained wings level.  I noticed  the ball was out to the left and when I centered it, my vertigo went away.   Question, what the heck is causing the ball to slide left when flying into the  clouds?  Btw, I have a plastic wedge on the left side of the rudder which  centers the ball in cruise flight, I suspect airflow over it changes as the air  density changes when flying into the clouds.  Anyone else experience such a  strange phenomenon?  Have an explanation?

 Jim Stone 

 Louisville KY

 275 Hours

 [quote]   ---

smokyray(at)rocketmail.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

G'day again Andy,



  To answer your question, yes, I have LR tanks, a design identical to Hotel Whiskey Aviation's (Safe Air One) tanks that slide through the lightening holes in the wing forward of the spar with the largest portion inside the tip, five gallons each for a total capacity of 54 gallons. Mine utilize a check valve which requires no separate valves, settings, pumps or otherwise to drain, gravity and vent pressure drain them dry every time. 

  Maximum range cruise I have tried many settings but  20"/2350 RPM between 8500 and 10500 feet 50 LOP and 33 degrees advance with the GAMI injectors seems to deliver the best speed/economy. This equates to 10.5 GPH at 183 Knots TAS. On one occasion searching for a lost child in the swamp I set 20/20 leaned to peak and saw 6.5 GPH at 125 knots flying  search patterns for over five hours and and still had enough fuel left to fly 200NM home at high cruise! 

Your mileage may vary:)

Smokey

HR2



--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Jim Stone <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> wrote:

[quote]

From: Jim Stone <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>

Subject: Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 7:57 AM



                   Tom and others,

 Have you ever noticed your Rocket yaws when you fly  into the clouds.  I got significant vertigo the first few times I went IMC  and then figured out why.  I noticed as I flew into the clouds my inner ear  sensed a 30 deg left bank but the aircraft remained wings level.  I noticed  the ball was out to the left and when I centered it, my vertigo went away.   Question, what the heck is causing the ball to slide left when flying into the  clouds?  Btw, I have a plastic wedge on the left side of the rudder which  centers the ball in cruise flight, I suspect airflow over it changes as the air  density changes when flying into the clouds.  Anyone else experience such a  strange phenomenon?  Have an explanation?

 Jim Stone 

 Louisville KY

 275 Hours

 [quote]   ---

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:13 am Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Did you guys find the kid?



   From: owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob  Ray

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:23 AM

To:  rocket-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Rocket Efficiency,  Defined!

 

            G'day again Andy,       



         To answer your question, yes, I have LR tanks, a design        identical to Hotel Whiskey Aviation's (Safe Air One) tanks that slide        through the lightening holes in the wing forward of the spar with the        largest portion inside the tip, five gallons each for a total capacity of        54 gallons. Mine utilize a check valve which requires no separate valves,        settings, pumps or otherwise to drain, gravity and vent pressure drain        them dry every time. 

         Maximum range cruise I have tried many settings but         20"/2350 RPM between 8500 and 10500 feet 50 LOP and 33 degrees        advance with the GAMI injectors seems to deliver the best speed/economy.        This equates to 10.5 GPH at 183 Knots TAS. On one occasion searching for a        lost child in the swamp I set 20/20 leaned to peak and saw 6.5 GPH at 125        knots flying search patterns for over five hours and and still had enough        fuel left to fly 200NM home at high cruise! 

       



       Your mileage may vary:)

       



       Smokey

       HR2



--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Jim Stone        <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> wrote:

       [quote]

From:          Jim Stone <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>

Subject: Re: Rocket-List:          Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com

Date:          Saturday, January 9, 2010, 7:57 AM



                  UNKNOWN { 	FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; panose-1: 2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4 } #yiv304304449 #yiv304304449 P.MsoNormal { 	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } #yiv304304449 LI.MsoNormal { 	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } #yiv304304449 DIV.MsoNormal { 	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt } #yiv304304449 A:link { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } #yiv304304449 SPAN.MsoHyperlink { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } #yiv304304449 A:visited { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } #yiv304304449 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } #yiv304304449 PRE { 	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; FONT-SIZE: 10pt } #yiv304304449 SPAN.EmailStyle18 { 	FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy } UNKNOWN { 	MARGIN: 72pt 90pt } #yiv304304449 DIV.Section1 { 	 }           Tom and others,

         Have you ever noticed your Rocket yaws when          you fly into the clouds.  I got significant vertigo the first few          times I went IMC and then figured out why.  I noticed as I flew          into the clouds my inner ear sensed a 30 deg left bank but the aircraft          remained wings level.  I noticed the ball was out to the left and          when I centered it, my vertigo went away.  Question, what the heck          is causing the ball to slide left when flying into the clouds?           Btw, I have a plastic wedge on the left side of the rudder which centers          the ball in cruise flight, I suspect airflow over it changes as the air          density changes when flying into the clouds.  Anyone else          experience such a strange phenomenon?  Have an          explanation?

         Jim Stone 

         Louisville KY

         275 Hours

         [quote]           ---

andrew(at)nzactive.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:59 pm Post subject: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

Thx for the info, y'all. Will seriously consider prop  upgrade at overhaul time. Or before  An extra 10 knots would be  marvellous!

  

 Andrew



   From: owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob  Ray

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:00 AM

To:  rocket-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Rocket Efficiency,  Defined!

 

            G'day again Andy,       



         To answer your question, yes, I have LR tanks, a design        identical to Hotel Whiskey Aviation's (Safe Air One) tanks that slide        through the lightening holes in the wing forward of the spar with the        largest portion inside the tip, five gallons each for a total capacity of        54 gallons. Mine utilize a check valve which requires no separate valves,        settings, pumps or otherwise to drain, gravity and vent pressure drain        them dry every time. 

         Maximum range cruise I have tried many settings but         20"/2350 RPM between 8500 and 10500 feet 50 LOP and 33 degrees        advance with the GAMI injectors seems to deliver the best speed/economy.        This equates to 10.5 GPH at 183 Knots TAS. On one occasion searching for a        lost child in the swamp I set 20/20 leaned to peak and saw 6.5 GPH at 125        knots flying search patterns for over five hours and and still had enough        fuel left to fly 200NM home at high cruise! 

       



       Your mileage may vary:)

       



       Smokey

       HR2



--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Jim Stone        <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> wrote:

       [quote]

From:          Jim Stone <jrstone(at)insightbb.com>

Subject: Re: Rocket-List:          Rocket Efficiency, Defined!

To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com

Date:          Saturday, January 9, 2010, 7:57 AM



                  UNKNOWN { 	FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; panose-1: 2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4 } #yiv304304449 #yiv304304449 P.MsoNormal { 	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } #yiv304304449 LI.MsoNormal { 	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } #yiv304304449 DIV.MsoNormal { 	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } #yiv304304449 A:link { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } #yiv304304449 SPAN.MsoHyperlink { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } #yiv304304449 A:visited { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } #yiv304304449 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } #yiv304304449 PRE { 	FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } #yiv304304449 SPAN.EmailStyle18 { 	COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } UNKNOWN { 	MARGIN: 72pt 90pt } #yiv304304449 DIV.Section1 { 	 }           Tom and others,

         Have you ever noticed your Rocket yaws when          you fly into the clouds.  I got significant vertigo the first few          times I went IMC and then figured out why.  I noticed as I flew          into the clouds my inner ear sensed a 30 deg left bank but the aircraft          remained wings level.  I noticed the ball was out to the left and          when I centered it, my vertigo went away.  Question, what the heck          is causing the ball to slide left when flying into the clouds?           Btw, I have a plastic wedge on the left side of the rudder which centers          the ball in cruise flight, I suspect airflow over it changes as the air          density changes when flying into the clouds.  Anyone else          experience such a strange phenomenon?  Have an          explanation?

         Jim Stone 

         Louisville KY

         275 Hours

         [quote]           ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Rocket-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

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 can download files in this forum