Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:45 AM - Re: section of the manual (nick otterback)
2. 11:41 AM - Re: section of the manual (Tex Mantell)
3. 11:46 AM - Re: Re: To Brian W. // Tom Hoffman (Brian Whittingham)
4. 06:02 PM - Re: Lightning flys in Australia (N1BZRich@aol.com)
5. 06:46 PM - Re: section of the manual (Colin J. Kennedy)
6. 06:54 PM - Re: Re: To Brian W. (Charles Dewey)
7. 07:06 PM - Re: Re: To Brian W. (Brian Whittingham)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: section of the manual |
Items have been added to the list...the gearleg farings will most likley be done
this week...have been working at those...
nick
Tex Mantell <wb2ssj@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nick, you asked us for input for the manual, here are a few sections
I think are missing.
1. Bungee install on the elevator
2. diagrams for part location on firewall.
3. installation of gear farings
4. templates for naca scopes cutouts
Tex
__________________________________________________
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: section of the manual |
Thanks for the update Nick, also a section on installing the baggage
area parts. Tex
----- Original Message -----
From: nick otterback
To: lightning-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: section of the manual
Items have been added to the list...the gearleg farings will most
likley be done this week...have been working at those...
nick
Tex Mantell <wb2ssj@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nick, you asked us for input for the manual, here are a few sections
I think are missing.
1. Bungee install on the elevator
2. diagrams for part location on firewall.
3. installation of gear farings
4. templates for naca scopes cutouts
Tex
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: 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 th
e site. Brian W.
> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:32:22 -0700> From: cdewey6969@yahoo.com> Subjec
t: RE: Lightning-List: RE: To Brian W. // Tom Hoffman> To: lightning-list@m
6969@yahoo.com>> > Brian- When will the Impulse Extreme be available?> > To
m 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? c
harles> > Charles> --- Brian Whittingham <dashvii@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 tailwh
eel and tip tanks. > >> http://www.capco-aviation.be/Impulse%20Gallery/Ipro
bJet.jpg> > It is a real aircraft, called the Capco Impulse> > Xtreme. It i
s 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 kn
ots and takeoff and landing distances are about> > like the Lightning. Look
through these aircraft> > here:> > http://www.capco-aviation.be/Impulse%20
Aircraft.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/ope
n.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 X
treme 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 a
lso gives you an idea of what> > it'd take to get a plane of roughly the sa
me size> > and shape up to those speeds. It has about 300hp> > from a derat
ed Allison turboprop. 100hp = 175 mph,> > 300 = 250mph. Also notice tha
t 3 times the power> > doesn't equal three times the speed. The first> > 20
0mph 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 fr
om 5gph> > - 15gph. Still, this is not bad, considering it's> > about like
a new Bonanza or Mooney. > > > > The airplane that I was considering for mo
dification> > to a 250mph machine is this one:> >> http://www.millennium-ai
rcraft.com/photogallery.php?id=1&img=images/multimedia/photo/1/DSC_9698
T.jpg> > I was looking for 250-260mph at full throttle> > though. It's a be
autiful 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 1
90mph on a 100hp Rotax. I think if you> > doubled the power, perhaps a litt
le more than double> > it'd do 250mph wide open. The modified Jabiru> > eng
ine, reportedly capable of 200hp is from the> > "Snark" UAV and can be read
about here: > >> http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://ww
w.gizmag.com.au/go/4785/1/> > > > Brian W> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:58
-0700>> > From: cdewey6969@yahoo.com> Subject: RE:> > Lightning-List: RE: F
lying Pencil> To:> > lightning-list@matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List> >
message posted by: Charles Dewey> > <cdewey6969@yahoo.com>> > Brian, Thanks
for the> > responses. That is a lot of> great material you> > gave. With t
he 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> > Lig
htning, was only a one-seater (thus narrower),>> > and one would virtually
be laying down while> > flying;> it would greatly increase your> > aerodyna
mics. It would> truly be a flying pencil. It> > seems like these> aerodynam
ic improvements would> > more than make up for> the lack of engine brawn, a
nd> > be able to push the> plane to 250. It actually> > sounds really comfo
rtable> practically lying down> > while flying- you would have to> fight no
t to sleep.> > I know we had this discussion> months back- and the> > concl
usion rached back then was> that you simply> > have to have more horse powe
r to> propel it once you> > reach a certain speed, no matter> how aerodynam
ic> > the plane is--- is that the case with> this> > prototype I have in mi
nd? Charles> --- Brian> > Whittingham <dashvii@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 c
apable of that> > speed and easy> > on the fuel, unfortunately they> > are
one of a kind> > aircraft. One of these is Cory> > Bird's "Symmetry"> > whi
ch probably several people> > have seen at Oskosh. > > Little yellow airpla
ne. 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> > po
sible. They> > weren't just smooth though, there was> > virtually> > no dis
tortion in the wing, even the> > slightest> > ripple or ridge. > > > > Ther
e's a couple of> > unfortunate problems with what> > you asked about.> > Fi
rst, even though I'm certain the> > guy saw some> > real benefits in airspe
ed 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 d
ecide against it. I was writing a>> > > paper a couple of years back that c
ompared and> >> > contrasted light sport aircraft for training> >> > purpos
es and compared them to 5 popular non-light> >> > sport aircraft. I compare
d several performance> >> > variables between all aircraft. Anyhow, long st
ory>> > > 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 o
f> > gas, no matter how fuel efficient the> > engine is. > > So, that means
we have to compete on> > the level of> > superior aerodynamics. > > > > Wh
at> > I learned with the Arion project was just how> >> > important that fr
ontal area of an aircraft is. If> >> > you notice the Lightning doesn't hav
e 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 ou
t the> >> > cockpit. How much speed do you think an additional>> > > 6 inch
es 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 a
nd felt> > it glide on the breeze,> > then turn it vertical> > against the
win and felt the> > force of resistence,> > then you're starting to> > unde
rstand how just a> > little surface can create a> > huge amount of drag.> >
Another point is that of> > having a high natural> > laminar flow wing. No
w 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 f
urther> > forward> > than a NLF wing. The NLF wing can basically> > be> > c
onsidered sleeker because it's not displacing> >> > air as far from the air
craft as a more inefficient>> > > wing. (Also the reason why having a balan
ced> >> > cross-sectional area on a subsonic aircraft can> >> > greatly red
uce drag) Arion does a pretty good job> >> > at both, while staying within
their mission> >> > objectives.> > > > Now having said all of that, I> > ha
ve 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 Jab
iru> > engine. The aircraft is an> > Italian built tandem> > seat plane, th
at would need> > some modifications> > including fitting the Jabiru> > engi
ne. If you're> > interested I could tell you more> > about this.> > >> > >
The problem with that is that there's absolutely> > no> > idea on the safet
y 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 Jabi
ru engine guys in> > Australia and> > tried to get an idea of how an> > ind
ipendent 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, b
ut> > gave me some suggestions. They> > did tell me they> > had a guy get 1
40hp out of a very> > slightly> > modified engine though! Basically the> >
highly> > modified engine was twin turbo and EFI'd> > though.> > It was a d
efense contractor so they appear> > to not> > respond when I try to get spe
cifics. Of> > course> > the more you get away from the standard> > product>
> the more questionable the longevity of the> > engine> > is, and therefor
e is hard to say if it is> > "Safe".> > > > > > One thing that is true with
out having to> > fill in the> > numbers is that it takes more power> > to g
o faster. > > It also takes more fuel to make> > more power as> > previousl
y established. Right now> > there's less of a> > track record for GA aircra
ft in> > the 250-300mph range> > because it's been relatively> > recently t
hat 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> > y
ou'd have to sacrifice a> > margin of safety or> > fuel consumption, or mos
t 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 sp
orts class races as it would> >> > come cheaper and place better in the Unl
imited> >> > class. (sports class, back of the pack is running> >> > around
250mph for the slowest heat races,> > 300-400mph> > for most of the real r
acers) I wanted> > to go in and> > prove that something with half the> > di
splacement> > could still be fast and fuel> > efficient though. A> > good s
howing at Reno and some> > media attention would> > mean that engine and> >
aircraft manufacturers pay> > attention and try to> > use that kind of thi
nking in> > future designs. Alas> > nobody > === message truncated
============> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!- Play Star Shuffle:- the word scramble
challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oc
t
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lightning flys in Australia |
Great photo, Brian, and as you said it proves our point about things "down
under". Now my question is how did you get a photo of a MIG's attitude
indicator? You aren't old enough to have been involved in projects "Have Drill"
or
"Have Doughnut". :-)
Buz
PS: Laurie, what say you?
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | section of the manual |
I was looking for the instructions to:
1. install the metal bracket on the horizontal tail spar cut-out on the
fuselage
2. install the seat harness cables.
Colin K.
OK
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-lightning-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tex
Mantell
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: section of the manual
Thanks for the update Nick, also a section on installing the baggage
area
parts. Tex
----- Original Message -----
From: nick <mailto:vettin74@yahoo.com> otterback
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Lightning-List: section of the manual
Items have been added to the list...the gearleg farings will most likley
be
done this week...have been working at those...
nick
Tex Mantell <wb2ssj@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nick, you asked us for input for the manual, here are a few sections I
think
are missing.
1. Bungee install on the elevator
2. diagrams for part location on firewall.
3. installation of gear farings
4. templates for naca scopes cutouts
Tex
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List">http://www.mat
ronic
s.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Brian, I get the feeling the Impulse Extreme might be
an abandoned pipe-dream project that never got off the
ground. I noticed in one of the links on their website
the date of 2004- so it has been at least a few
years. They claim the Allison 250 can run off of jet
fuel or unleaded car gas- seems like an unusual
claim... charles
--- Brian Whittingham <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Charles,
> I don't know any more about the Impulse than what
> is posted. In over a year it doesn't look like the
> site has changed other than adding a pic of their
> Unlimited Aerobatic plane similar to an Extra on the
> front page of the site. Brian W.
>
> > Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:32:22 -0700> From:
> cdewey6969@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Lightning-List:
> RE: To Brian W. // Tom Hoffman> To:
> lightning-list@matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List
> message posted by: Charles Dewey
> <cdewey6969@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@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@yahoo.com> Subject: RE:>
> > Lightning-List: RE: Flying Pencil> To:> >
> lightning-list@matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List>
> > message posted by: Charles Dewey> >
> <cdewey6969@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@hotmail.com> wrote:> >
> > > >> > Charles,> > I do have an appreciation for
> all things> > that go> > fast. I do know of maybe
> aircraft that> > are single> > or dual seat aircraft
> capable of that> > speed and easy> > on the fuel,
> unfortunately they> > are one of a kind> > aircraft.
> One of these is Cory> > Bird's "Symmetry"> > which
> probably several people> > have seen at Oskosh. > >
> Little yellow airplane. If> > you haven't read the>
> > history of the plane it is> > incredible! He spent
> a> > couple of years alone> > making the wings as
> smooth as> > posible. They> > weren't just smooth
> though, there was> > virtually> > no distortion in
> the wing, even the> > slightest> > ripple or ridge.
> > > > > There's a couple of> > unfortunate problems
> with what> > you asked about.> > First, even though
> I'm certain the> > guy saw some> > real benefits in
> airspeed from that> > kind of> > attention to
> detail, most of us aren't that> >> > dedicated and
> consider the time put into it versus>> > > the
> reward and decide against it. I was writing a>> > >
> paper a couple of years back that compared and> >> >
> contrasted light sport aircraft for training> >> >
> purposes and compared them to 5 popular non-light>
> >> > sport aircraft. I compared several performance>
> >> > variables between all aircraft. Anyhow, long
> story>> > > short one of those was comparing the
> engines,> >> > specifically the fuel flow in gph per
> horsepower. >> > > All the light sport were pretty
> much identical,> >> > which I kind of expected. The
> thing I didn't expect>> > > was the higher
> horsepower engines and the> > aircraft> > not
> limited to light sport speeds also> > had almost> >
> the exact same ratio. What this tells> > me is that>
> > you can only get so much power out of> > a gallon
> of> > gas, no matter how fuel efficient the> >
> engine is. > > So, that means we have to compete on>
> > the level of> > superior aerodynamics. > > > >
> What> > I learned with the Arion project was just
> how> >> > important that frontal area of an aircraft
> is. If> >> > you notice the Lightning doesn't have
> an elevated> >> > seat like in a Cessna 182, you
> basically sit on the>> > > floor. It does have a
> reclined seat back which> >> > gives even 6 foot 4
> guys the ability to have> >> > headroom, but doesn't
> vertically stretch out the> >> > cockpit. How much
> speed do you think an additional>> > > 6 inches
> across the top of the canopy would make?> > > > Well
> it's not just the 6 inches vertical, but> > the 40>
> > some odd inches horizontal. That's a lot> > of
> square> > inch area that would add to the> >
> airframe. Now if> > you've ever stuck your hand out>
> > the window and held> > it out like a wing and
> felt> > it glide on the breeze,> > then turn it
> vertical> > against the win and felt the> > force of
> resistence,> > then you're starting to> > understand
> how just a> > little surface can create a> > huge
> amount of drag.> > Another point is that of> >
> having a high natural> > laminar flow wing. Now I'm>
> > not talking about> > minimizing Induced Drag here,
> that> > becomes less> > important as you go faster,
> I'm talking> > about the> > mixing of the air caused
> by having the> > vortices> > come off of a wing at a
> point further> > forward> > than a NLF wing. The NLF
> wing can basically> > be> > considered sleeker
> because it's not displacing> >> > air as far from
> the aircraft as a more inefficient>> > > wing. (Also
> the reason why having a balanced> >> >
> cross-sectional area on a subsonic aircraft can> >>
> > greatly reduce drag) Arion does a pretty good job>
> >> > at both, while staying within their mission> >>
> > objectives.> > > > Now having said all of that, I>
> > have been trying to> > get sponsorship for a
> racer> > that should settle in> > around 250-270mph.
> My plans> > were to use a modified> > version of a
> Jabiru> > engine. The aircraft is an> > Italian
> built tandem> > seat plane, that would need> > some
> modifications> > including fitting the Jabiru> >
> engine. If you're> > interested I could tell you
> more> > about this.> > >> > > The problem with that
> is that there's absolutely> > no> > idea on the
> safety of such an aircraft. In> > racing> > there's
> a certain amount of give in safety> > in order> > to
> achieve speed. One example is doing> > away with> >
> stability in order to achive higher> > speeds. I've>
> > talked to the Jabiru engine guys in> > Australia
> and> > tried to get an idea of how an> > indipendent
> company> > was able to get a whole lot> > more power
> out of the> > 3300 than standard. They> > told me
> they didn't know> > of that project, but> > gave me
> some suggestions. They> > did tell me they> > had a
> guy get 140hp out of a very> > slightly> > modified
> engine though! Basically the> > highly> > modified
> engine was twin turbo and EFI'd> > though.> > It was
> a defense contractor so they appear> > to not> >
> respond when I try to get specifics. Of> > course> >
> the more you get away from the standard> > product>
> > the more questionable the longevity of the> >
> engine> > is, and therefore is hard to say if it is>
> > "Safe".> > > > > > One thing that is true without
> having
=== message truncated ==
__________________________________________________
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Charles,
Actually I could believe the Allison Turboprop could run off of unleaded
car gas. I remember a guy filling a Lear up with 100LL. They discovered
the error and cracked out the manuals and made the determination that they
could fly. Said that Lear planned for a 100LL burning jet engine so that i
f needed it could take on fuel where jet fuel wasn't available. They were
checking to see how long they could wanted to run on that mixture though.
Guess it burns hot and sooty, reduced time to overhaul engines. I believe
that you are probably right about the plane being stalled. I do know that
the company still exists though and just last year put out a special aeroba
tics plane. Brian W.> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:53:37 -0700> From: cdewey6
969@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Lightning-List: RE: To Brian W. > To: lightning
<cdewey6969@yahoo.com>> > Brian, I get the feeling the Impulse Extreme migh
t be> an abandoned pipe-dream project that never got off the> ground. I not
iced in one of the links on their website> the date of 2004- so it has been
at least a few> years. They claim the Allison 250 can run off of jet> fuel
or unleaded car gas- seems like an unusual> claim... charles> > > --- Bria
n Whittingham <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > > > Charles,> > I don't kno
w any more about the Impulse than what> > is posted. In over a year it does
n't look like the> > site has changed other than adding a pic of their> > U
nlimited Aerobatic plane similar to an Extra on the> > front page of the si
te. Brian W.> > > > > Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:32:22 -0700> From:> > cdewe
y6969@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Lightning-List:> > RE: To Brian W. // Tom Hof
fman> To:> > lightning-list@matronics.com> > --> Lightning-List> > message
posted by: Charles Dewey> > <cdewey6969@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>> > --- Br
ian Whittingham <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:>> > > > > > Charles,> > Were y
ou 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 t
anks. > >>> >> http://www.capco-aviation.be/Impulse%20Gallery/IprobJet.jpg>
> > > It is a real aircraft, called the Capco Impulse> >> > Xtreme. It is t
hat! 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 Lightn
ing. Look through these> > aircraft> > here:> >> > http://www.capco-aviatio
n.be/Impulse%20Aircraft.htm> > > > Scroll down and look at the Impulse Xcit
e. It> > has> > what I imagine the new flared tips for the> > future> > Lig
htnings 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 h
ere:> >> >> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1003679&size=L>> > >
Which is in of itself a development of the Falco.> > > > I would also say t
hat for an aircraft capable> > of> > 300mph the Xtreme is probably the lowe
st 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 ar
ound 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 Al
lison> > turboprop. 100hp = 175 mph,> > 300 = 250mph. Also> > notice th
at 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=image
s/multimedia/photo/1/DSC_9698T.jpg>> > > I was looking for 250-260mph at fu
ll throttle> >> > though. It's a beautiful little tandom seat> >> > aerobat
ic airplane. It is not as wide as the> >> > Lightning and about the same he
ight cabin, so> > should> > be reduction of frontal area. The wing is> > a
high> > speed design. The plane also features a> > built in> > fire suppres
sion system and BRS> > equipped. It's> > capable of 190mph on a 100hp> > Ro
tax. I think if you> > doubled the power, perhaps> > a little more than dou
ble> > it'd do 250mph wide> > open. The modified Jabiru> > engine, reported
ly> > capable of 200hp is from the> > "Snark" UAV and can> > be read about
here: > >>> >> http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://www.g
izmag.com.au/go/4785/1/>> > > > > Brian W> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:58>
> -0700>> > From: cdewey6969@yahoo.com> Subject: RE:>> > > Lightning-List:
RE: Flying Pencil> To:> >> > lightning-list@matronics.com> > --> Lightning
-List>> > > message posted by: Charles Dewey> >> > <cdewey6969@yahoo.com>>
> Brian, Thanks for the> >> > responses. That is a lot of> great material y
ou> >> > gave. With the hand out the window> example, it> >> > seems like i
f you had a Jabiru 3300 on a> plane> > that> > had half the height (vertica
l dimension) of>> > the> > Lightning, was only a one-seater (thus> > narrow
er),>> > and one would virtually be laying> > down while> > flying;> it wou
ld 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 l
ying down> > while flying-> > you would have to> fight not to sleep.> > I k
now we> > had this discussion> months back- and the> >> > conclusion rached
back then was> that you simply> >> > have to have more horse power to> pro
pel it once> > you> > reach a certain speed, no matter> how> > aerodynamic>
> the plane is--- is that the case> > with> this> > prototype I have in mi
nd? Charles> ---> > Brian> > Whittingham <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:> >> >
> > >> > Charles,> > I do have an appreciation for> > all things> > that g
o> > fast. I do know of maybe> > aircraft that> > are single> > or dual sea
t aircraft> > capable of that> > speed and easy> > on the fuel,> > unfortun
ately they> > are one of a kind> > aircraft.> > One of these is Cory> > Bir
d'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> > ma
king the wings as> > smooth as> > posible. They> > weren't just smooth> > t
hough, 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 cer
tain 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 agains
t it. I was writing a>> > >> > paper a couple of years back that compared a
nd> >> >> > contrasted light sport aircraft for training> >> >> > purposes
and compared them to 5 popular non-light>> > >> > sport aircraft. I compare
d several performance>> > >> > variables between all aircraft. Anyhow, long
> > story>> > > short one of those was comparing the> > engines,> >> > spec
ifically the fuel flow in gph per> > horsepower. >> > > All the light sport
were pretty> > much identical,> >> > which I kind of expected. The> > thin
g I didn't expect>> > > was the higher> > horsepower engines and the> > air
craft> > not> > limited to light sport speeds also> > had almost> >> > the
exact same ratio. What this tells> > me is that>> > > you can only get so m
uch 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 pr
oject was just> > how> >> > important that frontal area of an aircraft> > i
s. If> >> > you notice the Lightning doesn't have> > an elevated> >> > seat
like in a Cessna 182, you> > basically sit on the>> > > floor. It does hav
e a> > reclined seat back which> >> > gives even 6 foot 4> > guys the abili
ty to have> >> > headroom, but doesn't> > vertically stretch out the> >> >
cockpit. How much> > speed do you think an additional>> > > 6 inches> > acr
oss the top of the canopy would make?> > > > Well> > it's not just the 6 in
ches 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 s
tarting to> > understand> > how just a> > little surface can create a> > hu
ge> > amount of drag.> > Another point is that of> >> > having a high natur
al> > laminar flow wing. Now I'm>> > > not talking about> > minimizing Indu
ced Drag here,> > that> > becomes less> > important as you go faster,> > I'
m talking> > about the> > mixing of the air caused> > by having the> > vort
ices> > come off of a wing at a> > point further> > forward> > than a NLF w
ing. The NLF> > wing can basically> > be> > considered sleeker> > because i
t's not displacing> >> > air as far from> > the aircraft as a more ineffici
ent>> > > wing. (Also> > the reason why having a balanced> >> >> > cross-se
ctional area on a subsonic aircraft can> >>> > > greatly reduce drag) Arion
does a pretty good job>> > >> > at both, while staying within their missio
n> >>> > > objectives.> > > > Now having said all of that, I>> > > have bee
n trying to> > get sponsorship for a> > racer> > that should settle in> > a
round 250-270mph.> > My plans> > were to use a modified> > version of a> >
Jabiru> > engine. The aircraft is an> > Italian> > built tandem> > seat pla
ne, that would need> > some> > modifications> > including fitting the Jabir
u> >> > engine. If you're> > interested I could tell you> > more> > about t
his.> > >> > > The problem with that> > is that there's absolutely> > no> >
idea on the> > safety of such an aircraft. In> > racing> > there's> > a ce
rtain amount of give in safety> > in order> > to> > achieve speed. One exam
ple is doing> > away with> >> > stability in order to achive higher> > spee
ds. I've>> > > talked to the Jabiru engine guys in> > Australia> > and> > t
ried 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 suggesti
ons. They> > did tell me they> > had a> > guy get 140hp out of a very> > sl
ightly> > modified> > engine though! Basically the> > highly> > modified> >
engine was twin turbo and EFI'd> > though.> > It was> > a defense contract
or 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 i
s hard to say if it is>> > > "Safe".> > > > > > One thing that is true with
out> > having > === message truncated ===> > > ________________
========================> _
==> > >
_________________________________________________________________
!
ilnews
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|