Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:45 PM - Re: Re: To Tom (Charles Dewey)
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 |
|
Tom- 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
--- Brian Whittingham <dashvii@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Charles,
> Actually I could believe the Allison Turboprop
> could run off of unleaded car gas. I remember a guy
> filling a Lear up with 100LL. They discovered the
> error and cracked out the manuals and made the
> determination that they could fly. Said that Lear
> planned for a 100LL burning jet engine so that if
> needed it could take on fuel where jet fuel wasn't
> available. They were checking to see how long they
> could wanted to run on that mixture though. Guess
> it burns hot and sooty, reduced time to overhaul
> engines. I believe that you are probably right
> about the plane being stalled. I do know that the
> company still exists though and just last year put
> out a special aerobatics plane. Brian W.> Date:
> Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:53:37 -0700> From:
> cdewey6969@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Lightning-List:
> RE: To Brian W. > To: lightning-list@matronics.com>
> Dewey <cdewey6969@yahoo.com>> > Brian, I get the
> feeling the Impulse Extreme might be> an abandoned
> pipe-dream project that never got off the> ground. I
> noticed in one of the links on their website> the
> date of 2004- so it has been at least a few> years.
> They claim the Allison 250 can run off of jet> fuel
> or unleaded car gas- seems like an unusual> claim...
> charles> > > --- Brian Whittingham
> <dashvii@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
=== message truncated ==
__________________________________________________
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! --
|