Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:11 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (Tom Martin)
2. 08:44 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (Rob Ray)
3. 08:45 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (Rob Ray)
4. 09:42 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (J. Mcculley)
5. 09:47 AM - Rocket Cleanup (johntmey@aol.com)
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: | Rocket Efficiency, Defined! |
Andrew
I have been flying rockets for twelve years now and have been
fortunate to have flown many different versions. All of them fly
beautifully and I can honestly say that if I had to go back to other types
of aircraft I probably would not fly very much. The last three years I have
participated in a few events held by the Sport Aircraft Racing League, SARL,
HYPERLINK
"http://sportairrace.org/index.html"http://sportairrace.org/index.html . It
has been a real learning experience and with constant experimentation I have
increased the top speed of my aircraft considerably. The average top speed,
full power, in three races this year was 220.2 knots. This was full
throttle, 2650rpms.
In the same three races Wayne Hadath with a stock engine, and a clean light
stock F1 had a 212 knot average. The fastest RV8 is currently owned by John
Huft, and he is right around the 200 knot range with his beautiful aircraft.
I would encourage other rocket owners to participate in these events,
experiment with your aircraft and find some different ways to get these
amazing aircraft even faster. With gains in top speed, comes gains in
efficiency which you will use on each and every flight.
Tom Martin
_____
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ACTIVE NZ -
Andrew
Sent: January 8, 2010 1:01 AM
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of different aircraft, but
nothing, NOTHING, can touch my Rocket. Except another Rocket, and some of
you guys seem to have slightly faster ones than I do - I true out at max
cruise (2500 rpm, max throttle, 5000-10,000 feet) at exactly 200 knots, and
I've heard some people true out at 205, even 210? Is that true, anyone?
And as you say the speed/economy equation is extraordinary - not to mention,
the pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL capabilities too.
Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that the best economy
comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal friction of the
engine. I wonder if you would have got even better figures at, say, 22" MP
and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit is, for your engine...? I
believe that is the main "trick" that Lindbergh taught the aviators of the
US Navy & Marine Corps in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was sent
over to teach them to get maximum range and endurance from their steeds.
not trying to argue, just thought I'd mention it. Your basic point - that
rockets rock - is pretty indisputable I reckon :)
Andrew
_____
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ray
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 AM
Subject: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Guys,
More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the capabilities of this
little machine. Coming home from Dallas post-Christmas I looked at forecast
winds and thought I would try to one hop it home, nearly 800NM and really
get some efficiency numbers. With 54 gallons of 100LL on board( 10 gallon
aux tanks) I launched, cruise climbed to 11,500 and after letting my Ly-Con
built IO-540 with GAMI injectors settle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees
LOP and 33 degrees advance on my EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I
consistently showed 10.4 GPH at 235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being
a Saturday and knowing the Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to
home, straight over the Golfo De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500
increasing my GS to 252 knots retaining the same FF. When I finally began my
descent into the swamp I still had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board,
landing on my 1500 ft grass strip with 16 gallons left.
My Rocket is definitely not the fastest on the block with my oversize
tires, caked mud and large tailwheel dragging in the breeze, but it truly
shows what John's design is capable of.
BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I flew over the house,
looking forward to several thousand more!
Rob "Smokey" Ray
HR2
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com> wrote:
From: nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Rocket-List: FW: What was the slowest you ever flew the
Blackbird?(MWH)
What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?
Brian Shul, Retired SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.
As a former SR-71 pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question
I'm most often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be assured of
hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's an
interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed, but there
really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always give you a little
more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to see 35 miles a minute.
Because we flew a programmed Mach number on most missions, and never wanted
to harm the plane in any way, we never let it run out to any limits of
temperature or speed. Thus, each SR-71 pilot had his own individual "high"
speed that he saw at some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when
Khadafy fired two missiles my way, and max power was in order.
Let's just say that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to
Mach numbers we hadn't previously seen.
So it was with great surprise, when at the end of one of my presentations,
someone asked, "what was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"
This was a first.
After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I had never
shared before, and relayed the following.
I was flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England, with my back-seater,
Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over Europe and the Iron
Curtain when we received a radio transmission from home base. As we scooted
across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the
English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet commander
there was a former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating
moment for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach. No
problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling over the
North Sea, we proceeded to find the small airfield.
Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the back seat,
and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to subsonic speeds, we
found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a slight haze. Like most
former WWII British airfields, the one we were looking for had a small tower
and little surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were close and that
I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as
far as I could see in the haze.
We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we
were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable. Walt
said we were practically over the field-yet; there was nothing in my
windscreen. I banked the jet and started a gentle circling maneuver in hopes
of picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet
commander had taken the cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to
get a prime view of the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and
partial gray overcast.
Walter continued to give me indications that the field should be below us
but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it. The longer we continued to
peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the
awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors in my flying
career, as something told me I better cross-check the gauges.
As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped
and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At this
point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank.
Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a thunderous roar of
flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the aircraft fell into full view
of the shocked observers on the tower. Shattering the still quiet of that
morning, they now had 107 feet of fire-breathing titanium in their face as
the plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the
infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be described as
some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass.
Quickly reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Mildenhall without
incident. We didn't say a word for those next 14 minutes.
After landing, our commander greeted us, and we were both certain he was
reaching for our wings. Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the
commander had told him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever seen,
especially how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that could
only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the cadet's hats
were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the plane in full
afterburner dropping right in front of them was unbelievable.
Walt and I both understood the concept of "breathtaking" very well that
morning, and sheepishly replied that they were just excited to see our low
approach.
As we retired to the equipment room to change from space suits to flight
suits, we just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass."
Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots. What
did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred fifty-two."
We sat in silence for a moment. Then Walt said, "Don't ever do that to me
again!"
And I never did.
A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the Mildenhall Officer's
club, and overheard an officer talking to some cadets about an SR-71
fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course, by now the story included kids
falling off the tower and screaming as the heat of the jet singed their
eyebrows.
Noticing our HABU patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands,
he asked us to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred.
Walt just shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine low
approach; they're pretty impressive in that plane."
Impressive indeed.
Little did I realize after relaying this experience to my audience that day
that it would become one of the most popular and most requested stories.
It's ironic that people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet
can fly. Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to keep
that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up, too.
nbsp; --> HYPERLINK "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List"
\nhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List
_sp; --> HYPERLINK "http://forums.matronics.com" \nh - List
Contribution Web Site; &nb; HYPERLINK
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution" \nhttp:=======================
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List"http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?Rocket-List
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG.
6:16 AM
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: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! |
G'day Andy,
I too am a big fan of Charles Lindberg and will have to test his P-38 leaning
technique sometime. When I knock around here locally I set 20/20 below 5000 ft
msl and nomalky show 6 gph at 125 knots, counting the big Hartzell blades as
they pass by:) Even more amazing is comparing my RV4 fuel logs from the past
on identical trips with the HR2, equal or less at 30 knots faster!
Smokey
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 8, 2010, at 1:00 AM, "ACTIVE NZ - Andrew" <andrew@nzactive.com> wrote:
Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of different aircraft, but nothing,
NOTHING, can touch my Rocket. Except another Rocket, and some of you guys
seem to have slightly faster ones than I do - I true out at max cruise (2500
rpm, max throttle, 5000-10,000 feet) at exactly 200 knots, and I've heard some
people true out at 205, even 210? Is that true, anyone?
And as you say the speed/economy equation is extraordinary - not to mention, the
pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL capabilities too.
Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that the best economy comes
from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal friction of the engine.
I wonder if you would have got even better figures at, say, 22" MP and 2000
rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit is, for your engine...? I believe that
is the main "trick" that Lindbergh taught the aviators of the US Navy & Marine
Corps in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was sent over to teach them
to get maximum range and endurance from their steeds.
not trying to argue, just thought I'd mention it. Your basic point - that rockets
rock - is pretty indisputable I reckon :)
Andrew
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ray
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 AM
Subject: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
Guys,
More on a Rocket note, I am constantly amazed by the capabilities of this little
machine. Coming home from Dallas post-Christmas I looked at forecast winds and
thought I would try to one hop it home, nearly 800NM and really get some efficiency
numbers. With 54 gallons of 100LL on board( 10 gallon aux tanks) I launched,
cruise climbed to 11,500 and after letting my Ly-Con built IO-540 with
GAMI injectors settle down I began to lean to 50 Degrees LOP and 33 degrees advance
on my EI. With just under 20" MP and 2375 RPM I consistently showed 10.4
GPH at 235 Knots GS, a nice tailwind indeed. Being a Saturday and knowing the
Whiskey areas would be cold I requested direct to home, straight over the Golfo
De Mexico, went on O2 and climbed to 15,500 increasing my GS to 252 knots
retaining the same FF. When I finally began my descent into the swamp I still
had nearly 20 gallons of fuel on board, landing on my 1500 ft grass strip with
16 gallons left.
My Rocket is definitely not the fastest on the block with my oversize tires,
caked mud and large tailwheel dragging in the breeze, but it truly shows what
John's design is capable of.
BTW, the tach almost clicked over 1000 hours as I flew over the house, looking
forward to several thousand more!
Rob "Smokey" Ray
HR2
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com> wrote:
From: nico css <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Rocket-List: FW: What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?(MWH)
What was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?
Brian Shul, Retired SR-71 Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine.
As a former SR-71 pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question
I'm most often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be assured of
hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's an
interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed, but there
really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always give you a little
more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to see 35 miles a minute.
Because we flew a programmed Mach number on most missions, and never wanted
to harm the plane in any way, we never let it run out to any limits of
temperature or speed. Thus, each SR-71 pilot had his own individual "high"
speed that he saw at some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when
Khadafy fired two missiles my way, and max power was in order.
Let's just say that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to
Mach numbers we hadn't previously seen.
So it was with great surprise, when at the end of one of my presentations,
someone asked, "what was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"
This was a first.
After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I had never
shared before, and relayed the following.
I was flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England, with my back-seater,
Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over Europe and the Iron
Curtain when we received a radio transmission from home base. As we scooted
across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the
English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet commander
there was a former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating
moment for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach. No
problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling over the
North Sea, we proceeded to find the small airfield.
Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the back seat,
and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to subsonic speeds, we
found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a slight haze. Like most
former WWII British airfields, the one we were looking for had a small tower
and little surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were close and that
I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as
far as I could see in the haze.
We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we
were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable. Walt
said we were practically over the field-yet; there was nothing in my
windscreen. I banked the jet and started a gentle circling maneuver in hopes
of picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet
commander had taken the cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to
get a prime view of the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and
partial gray overcast.
Walter continued to give me indications that the field should be below us
but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it. The longer we continued to
peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the
awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors in my flying
career, as something told me I better cross-check the gauges.
As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped
and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At this
point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank.
Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a thunderous roar of
flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the aircraft fell into full view
of the shocked observers on the tower. Shattering the still quiet of that
morning, they now had 107 feet of fire-breathing titanium in their face as
the plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the
infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be described as
some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass.
Quickly reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Mildenhall without
incident. We didn't say a word for those next 14 minutes.
After landing, our commander greeted us, and we were both certain he was
reaching for our wings. Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the
commander had told him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever seen,
especially how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that could
only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the cadet's hats
were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the plane in full
afterburner dropping right in front of them was unbelievable.
Walt and I both understood the concept of "breathtaking" very well that
morning, and sheepishly replied that they were just excited to see our low
approach.
As we retired to the equipment room to change from space suits to flight
suits, we just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass."
Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots. What
did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred fifty-two."
We sat in silence for a moment. Then Walt said, "Don't ever do that to me
again!"
And I never did.
A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the Mildenhall Officer's
club, and overheard an officer talking to some cadets about an SR-71
fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course, by now the story included kids
falling off the tower and screaming as the heat of the jet singed their
eyebrows.
Noticing our HABU patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands,
he asked us to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred.
Walt just shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine low
approach; they're pretty impressive in that plane."
Impressive indeed.
Little did I realize after relaying this experience to my audience that day
that it would become one of the most popular and most requested stories.
It's ironic that people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet
can fly. Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to keep
that cross-check up, and keep your Mach up, too.
nbsp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List
_sp; --> h - List Contribution Web Site; &nb; http:=======================
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! |
Awesome!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 7, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Lee Logan <leeloganster@gmail.com> wrote:
Great report, Smokey. An amazing airplane, indeed!
Lee...
P.S. Festus and his gang spent the holidays with us. Spun him around the field
in my F1, had a great time!
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: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! |
I have found that the low RPM cruise choice does exactly what you have
described, primarily due to lower internal engine friction and somewhat
higher prop efficiency due to greater prop blade efficiency. Possibly,
the lower piston speed during the power stroke may provide more complete
combustion, particularly with slightly advanced ignition timing.
I regularly fly cruise at 1900 RPM and anything up to 22 or 23 inches
MAP depending on altitude and temperature with my LYC O-360 and Hartzell
constant speed prop. And with lean of peak operation I get up to 29-30
miles per gallon. In some cases, this allows non-stop flights that take
less flight time than the total elapsed time required by going faster
and having to make an enroute fuel stop. This is a winner on fuel costs,
time, and extended TBO possibilities!
Jim McCulley
===============================================================================
ACTIVE NZ - Andrew wrote: ((SNIP))
> Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that the best
> economy comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal
> friction of the engine. I wonder if you would have got even better
> figures at, say, 22" MP and 2000 rpm? Or whatever the lowest RPM limit
> is, for your engine...? I believe that is the main "trick" that
> Lindbergh taught the aviators of the US Navy & Marine Corps in the
> Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was sent over to teach them to get
> maximum range and endurance from their steeds. ((SNIP))
=================================================================================
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 |
|
Rocketeers,
Great thread about speeds and efficiency. Mine is nowhere near speed/effi
ciency recently stated.
I know some reasons why... I'm stuck with certain things but others are wo
rkable and just need some tweaking.
I'm done working overseas (retired) and now have some time to go back and
revisit unsolved items (cleanup / rebuild / tweak)
Goal is to make OSH with 1- stop (eastbound) this summer. That would be
CLM-OSH overall 1466 nm direct great circle, fuel-stop TBD.
Probably easy for some of your Rockets but mine needs some help.
Question: What is the actual proven tank capacity (later, bigger HR II ta
nks) ? I was not careful about metering and calibrating my own.
I just copied some other owner's data for my perf data and placards. Are
they 52 gallons (26 per side) ? Has anyone proven the capacity and the
actual unusable ?
More questions coming ....
Thanks in advance for answers.
John Meyers
HR II N5800 120 hrs Sequim WA
do not archive
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! --
|