 |
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: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:04 am Post subject: Flying Pencil |
 |
|
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:
| Quote: |
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 is beating down the
doors to help fund me. Hope this helps, Brian W.>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:07:11 -0700> From:
cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RE:
know of a fast plane?> To:
lightning-list(at)matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List
message posted by: Charles Dewey
<cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>> > Brian- i know you have
you're pulse on the aviation> industry. Know of any
plane that can go over 250mph> that is a 1-seater
without crazy fuel burn and decent> safety record?
charles> --- Brian Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com>
wrote:> > >
Brian> > Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com>> > > > >
> Translation of first paragraph talking about a> >
member of the flying club saying that the guy had a>
> lot of time in this plane and other ultralights.
He> > says the plane has one of the best engines on
the> > market and is able to fly both fast and
extremely> > slow.> > > > > > > > Second paragraph
says the aircraft crashed onto a> > road below, two
occupants died, weather was sunny> > and the winds
were calm. The owner/pilot, a> > Policeman in a
nearby city, had recently built his> > own airplane.
Cause of the crash was unknown and is> > being
investigated.> > > > > > > > The last paragraph
states that two people died in a> > crash when they
landed on a golf course.> > > > > > > > I think I
basically got that all right. These two> > seem to
be old accidents though, from 2003. Not> > sure if
any investigation was completed, but it> > would
appear, at least in the first accident that> > the
aircraft lost control, apparently unrelated to> >
weather. In all liklihood this would appear to be> >
pilot error. (due to the fact the weather was great>
> and the aircraft lost control. Also human error> >
being much more likely than any type of component> >
failure) Not really sure what this has to do with> >
the present day or the Lightning for that matter. >
> Nor how this helps us with safety unless there is
a> > part 2. Brian W.> > > > > > > Subject:
Re: To Doug K. // Esqual> > safety>
> > From: dececk(at)hotmail.com> > > Date: Tue, 23 Oct
2007 14:19:30 -0700> > > To:
lightning-list(at)matronics.com> > >> > > -->
Lightning-List message posted by: "dececk" > > >> >
> hi> > > here you can find some accident about
esqual in> > spanish> > > at this list, add the
latest one: yesterday a> > friend of mine had a
deadly accident with esqual...> > >> > > sorry for
my english> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > 27-09-03> > >
Dos pilotos mueren calcinados al estrellarse> > >> >
> ultraligero en el casco urbano de Muga. (Esqual)>
> >> > >> > >> > > La zona donde se produjo el
accidente con la> > avioneta es un área de vuelo
«perfecta»; en> > realidad tan buena como
cualquiera de las que se> > utilizan para la
práctica de este deporte, ya que,> > teniendo en
cuenta que no es la altura de los> > aviones
comerciales de pasajeros, del Ejército o de> >
otros usos oficiales, no hay altas montañas, ni> >
turbulencias, ni corrientes de aire o incidencias> >
que influyan decisivamente en la navegación. Se> >
trata de zonas muy similares en toda España, donde>
> los únicos espacios restringidos para esta> >
práctica son los parques naturales, zonas> >
militares, aproximaciones a aeropuertos y también>
> está prohibido sobrevolar ciudades.> > >> > >
AsÃ, los viajeros volaban en una zona plana y en> >
un dÃa meteorológicamente adecuado para este> >
deporte, tal como explica el director de> >
competiciones del Club Aeromodelismo Zamora,
Antonio> > Coco, quien además pertenece al de
aeroestación> > (vuelo en globo) y practica el
vuelo en ultraligero.> > >> > > Antonio Coco rechaza
pronunciarse sobre las> > posibles causas del
accidente por mera prudencia,> > pero sà conocÃa a
una de las vÃctimas del> > accidente J.G.G. y sabe
que tenÃa experiencia de> > vuelo: sólo el
ultraligero que se supone que> > pilotaba tenÃa
cuarenta
=== 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: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: Flying Pencil |
|
|
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.
[/url]
Personally I like that small turboprop. Looks like an SF-260 turboprop, such as here: [url=http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1003679&size=L]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
[quote] 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 is beating down the
> doors to help fund me. Hope this helps, Brian W.>
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:07:11 -0700> From:
> cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RE:
> know of a fast plane?> To:
> lightning-list(at)matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List
> message posted by: Charles Dewey
> <cdewey6969(at)yahoo.com>> > Brian- i know you have
> you're pulse on the aviation> industry. Know of any
> plane that can go over 250mph> that is a 1-seater
> without crazy fuel burn and decent> safety record?
> charles> --- Brian Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com>
> wrote:> > > --> Lightning-List message posted by:
> Brian> > Whittingham <dashvii(at)hotmail.com>> > > > >
> > Translation of first paragraph talking about a> >
> member of the flying club saying that the guy had a>
> > lot of time in this plane and other ultralights.
> He> > says the plane has one of the best engines on
> the> > market and is able to fly both fast and
> extremely> > slow.> > > > > > > > Second paragraph
> says the aircraft crashed onto a> > road below, two
> occupants died, weather was sunny> > and the winds
> were calm. The owner/pilot, a> > Policeman in a
> nearby city, had recently built his> > own airplane.
> Cause of the crash was unknown and is> > being
> investigated.> > > > > > > > The last paragraph
> states that two people died in a> > crash when they
> landed on a golf course.> > > > > > > > I think I
> basically got that all right. These two> > seem to
> be old accidents though, from 2003. Not> > sure if
> any investigation was completed, but it> > would
> appear, at least in the first accident that> > the
> aircraft lost control, apparently unrelated to> >
> weather. In all liklihood this would appear to be> >
> pilot error. (due to the fact the weather was great>
> > and the aircraft lost control. Also human error> >
> being much more likely than any type of component> >
> failure) Not really sure what this has to do with> >
> the present day or the Lightning for that matter. >
> > Nor how this helps us with safety unless there is
> a> > part 2. Brian W.> > > > > > > Subject:
> Re: To Doug K. // Esqual> > safety>
> > > From: dececk(at)hotmail.com> > > Date: Tue, 23 Oct
> 2007 14:19:30 -0700> > > To:
> lightning-list(at)matronics.com> > >> > > -->
> Lightning-List message posted by: "dececk" > > >> >
> > hi> > > here you can find some accident about
> esqual in> > spanish> > > at this list, add the
> latest one: yesterday a> > friend of mine had a
> deadly accident with esqual...> > >> > > sorry for
> my english> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > 27-09-03> > >
> Dos pilotos mueren calcinados al estrellarse> > >> >
> > ultraligero en el casco urbano de Muga. (Esqual)>
> > >> > >> > >> > > La zona donde se produjo el
> accidente con la> > avioneta es un área de vuelo
> «perfecta»; en> > realidad tan buena como
> cualquiera de las que se> > utilizan para la
> práctica de este deporte, ya que,> > teniendo en
> cuenta que no es la altura de los> > aviones
> comerciales de pasajeros, del Ejército o de> >
> otros usos oficiales, no hay altas montañas, ni> >
> turbulencias, ni corrientes de aire o incidencias> >
> que influyan decisivamente en la navegación. Se> >
> trata de zonas muy similares en toda España, donde>
> > los únicos espacios restringidos para esta> >
> práctica son los parques naturales, zonas> >
> militares, aproximaciones a aeropuertos y también>
> > está prohibido sobrevolar ciudades.> > >> > >
> AsÃ, los viajeros volaban en una zona plana y en> >
> un dÃa meteorológicamente adecuado para este> >
> deporte, tal como explica el director de> >
> competiciones del Club Aeromodelismo Zamora,
> Antonio> > Coco, quien además pertenece al de
> aeroestación> > (vuelo en globo) y practica el
> vuelo en ultraligero.> > >> > > Antonio Coco rechaza
> pronunciarse sobre las> > posibles causas del
> accidente por mera prudencia,> > pero sà conocÃa a
> una de las vÃctimas del> > accidente J.G.G. y sabe
> que tenÃa experiencia de> > vuelo: sólo el
> ultraligero que se supone que> > pilotaba tenÃa
> cuarenta
=== message truncated ===
_____________________________========================>
Boo! Scare alnews' target='_new'>Try now!
| | - 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
