 |
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: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: To Brian W. // Tom Hoffman |
 |
|
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:
| 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
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 to
fill in the> > numbers is that it takes more power
to go faster. > > It also takes more fuel to make
more power as> > previously established. Right now
there's less of a> > track record for GA aircraft in
the 250-300mph range> > because it's been relatively
recently that that's> > been an option. Sorry for
the long email, but> > basically the answer is a
complex no. I think we> > could get you there, but
you'd have to sacrifice a> > margin of safety or
fuel consumption, or most likely> > would be the
increase in $$. I had a guy tell me to> > buy a
warbird, a Yak, instead of trying to compete> > in
the 250-300mph sports class races as it would> >
come cheaper and place better in the Unlimited> >
class. (sports class, back of the pack is running> >
around 250mph for the slowest heat races,
300-400mph> > for most of the real racers) I wanted
to go in and> > prove that something with half the
displacement> > could still be fast and fuel
efficient though. A> > good showing at Reno and some
media attention would> > mean that engine and
aircraft manufacturers pay> > attention and try to
use that kind of thinking in> > future designs. Alas
nobody
=== 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 10:46 am Post subject: To Brian W. // Tom Hoffman |
|
|
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.
| Quote: | Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:32:22 -0700
From: cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com
Subject: RE: 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 to
> fill in the> > numbers is that it takes more power
> to go faster. > > It also takes more fuel to make
> more power as> > previously established. Right now
> there's less of a> > track record for GA aircraft in
> the 250-300mph range> > because it's been relatively
> recently that that's> > been an option. Sorry for
> the long email, but> > basically the answer is a
> complex no. I think we> > could get you there, but
> you'd have to sacrifice a> > margin of safety or
> fuel consumption, or most likely> > would be the
> increase in $$. I had a guy tell me to> > buy a
> warbird, a Yak, instead of trying to compete> > in
> the 250-300mph sports class races as it would> >
> come cheaper and place better in the Unlimited> >
> class. (sports class, back of the pack is running> >
> around 250mph for the slowest heat races,
> 300-400mph> > for most of the real racers) I wanted
> to go in and> > prove that something with half the
> displacement> > could still be fast and fuel
> efficient though. A> > good showing at Reno and some
> media attention would> > mean that engine and
> aircraft manufacturers pay> > attention and try to
> use that kind of thinking in> > future designs. Alas
> nobody
=== message truncated ===
____________________________========================>
|
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play 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
