Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:52 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (ACTIVE NZ - Andrew)
2. 07:53 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (Ernest Hale)
3. 08:02 AM - Re: Rocket Efficiency, Defined! (Jim Stone)
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! |
Nice info, y'all.
Unfortunately, being in NZ, I can't participate in these sorts of
things. Only two Rockets flying in NZ, that I know of - and another
being built.
I'd love to get another 10 knots or so out of my Rocket. I've noticed
that she flies with a LOT of down elevator (ie, forward stick) in the
cruise, and have wondered about resetting the incidence of the tail
plane. She also needs a little left aileron to fly straight, and this
means both ailerons are always *slightly* defected. Are these sorts of
things likely to rob serious speed? (As in, I don't care about 1-2
knots, but 10 or so, and I'd do something about it.
Would also be interested in the perspective of knowledgeable builder
pilots - I've heard of at least one Rocket fatality where the tail came
apart, and I'm told Mr Vans disapproves of our aircraft cos they're
being pushed beyond design limits. Is there anything in this? As in,
would it be worth dismantaling the horizontal and vertical stabs, and
rebuilding with thicker gauge steel? I know it's a big job.
Any 'easy' ideas for speeding up Rockets? I've got 280 hp, and she's
reasonably light, but does have some avionics of course. Not too many
aerials etc. Feel free to contact off list - andrew at activenewzealand
dot com.
Cheers
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Tom Martin
Sent: Sat 1/9/2010 5:30 AM
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 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.matron
href
"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/contribut
ion
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! |
Hey Andrew,
I didn=B9t build my Rocket and am not inclined in that way so have not input
to your questions. I did want to say that I have the same issues with my
Rocket, I have pretty much full down elevator in cruise, and my plane is
left wing heavy, I have been trying to figure out a way to get the wing
issue worked out, nothing good yet. Haven=B9t gone into the tail issue but
have wondered how much speed I am loosing, I am sure it is substantial.
Looking forward to the answers.
Ernest
N540HB
On 1/9/10 3:27 AM, "ACTIVE NZ - Andrew" <andrew@nzactive.com> wrote:
> Nice info, y'all.
>
> Unfortunately, being in NZ, I can't participate in these sorts of things.
Only
> two Rockets flying in NZ, that I know of - and another being built.
>
> I'd love to get another 10 knots or so out of my Rocket. I've noticed tha
t she
> flies with a LOT of down elevator (ie, forward stick) in the cruise, and
have
> wondered about resetting the incidence of the tail plane. She also needs
a
> little left aileron to fly straight, and this means both ailerons are alw
ays
> *slightly* defected. Are these sorts of things likely to rob serious spee
d?
> (As in, I don't care about 1-2 knots, but 10 or so, and I'd do something
about
> it.
>
> Would also be interested in the perspective of knowledgeable builder pilo
ts -
> I've heard of at least one Rocket fatality where the tail came apart, and
I'm
> told Mr Vans disapproves of our aircraft cos they're being pushed beyond
> design limits. Is there anything in this? As in, would it be worth
> dismantaling the horizontal and vertical stabs, and rebuilding with thick
er
> gauge steel? I know it's a big job.
>
> Any 'easy' ideas for speeding up Rockets? I've got 280 hp, and she's
> reasonably light, but does have some avionics of course. Not too many aer
ials
> etc. Feel free to contact off list - andrew at activenewzealand dot com.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rocket-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Tom Martin
> Sent: Sat 1/9/2010 5:30 AM
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 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 type
s
> of aircraft I probably would not fly very much. The last three years I h
ave
> participated in a few events held by the Sport Aircraft Racing League, SA
RL,
> HYPERLINK
> "http://sportairrace.org/index.html"http://sportairrace.org/index.html .
It
> has been a real learning experience and with constant experimentation I h
ave
> increased the top speed of my aircraft considerably. The average top spe
ed,
> 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 lig
ht
> stock F1 had a 212 knot average. The fastest RV8 is currently owned by J
ohn
> Huft, and he is right around the 200 knot range with his beautiful aircra
ft.
>
> 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
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Rocket-List: Rocket Efficiency, Defined!
>
>
>
> Couldn't agree more Smokey - I've flown a bunch of different aircraft, bu
t
> nothing, NOTHING, can touch my Rocket. Except another Rocket, and some o
f
> 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, a
nd
> 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 menti
on,
> the pretty damn good "go-slow" STOL capabilities too.
>
>
>
> Only tiny Q I have is that I was under the impression that the best econo
my
> comes from lower RPMs, partly or wholly cos of the internal friction of t
he
> engine. I wonder if you would have got even better figures at, say, 22" M
P
> 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 th
e
> US Navy & Marine Corps in the Pacific, back in '44 or so, when he was sen
t
> 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
> To: rocket-list@matronics.com
> 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 foreca
st
> 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-C
on
> built IO-540 with GAMI injectors settle down I began to lean to 50 Degree
s
> 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. Bei
ng
> 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)
> To: "'nico'" <nico@nicsysco.com>
> Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:29 PM
>
>
> 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 ther
e
> really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always give you a littl
e
> 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 want
ed
> 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 wh
en
> 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-seate
r,
> 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 scoot
ed
> 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 comman
der
> 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 sea
t,
> and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to subsonic speeds, w
e
> 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 to
wer
> and little surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were close and t
hat
> I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees a
s
> 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. Wal
t
> 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 ho
pes
> of picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, below, the ca
det
> 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, t
he
> awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors in my fly
ing
> career, as something told me I better cross-check the gauges.
>
> As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopp
ed
> and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At t
his
> 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 vi
ew
> 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 a
s
> the plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of t
he
> infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be described a
s
> some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass.
>
> Quickly reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Mildenhall with
out
> 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 see
n,
> especially how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that co
uld
> 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 lo
w
> 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. Wha
t
> did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered, "One hundred fifty-tw
o."
>
> 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 k
ids
> 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 hand
s,
> 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 d
ay
> 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 je
t
> can fly. Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to ke
ep
> 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.matronhr
ef
> "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/contribut
ion
>
>
> Checked by AVG.
> 6:16 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! |
Tom and others,
Have you ever noticed your Rocket yaws when you fly into the clouds. I
got significant vertigo the first few times I went IMC and then figured
out why. I noticed as I flew into the clouds my inner ear sensed a 30
deg left bank but the aircraft remained wings level. I noticed the ball
was out to the left and when I centered it, my vertigo went away.
Question, what the heck is causing the ball to slide left when flying
into the clouds? Btw, I have a plastic wedge on the left side of the
rudder which centers the ball in cruise flight, I suspect airflow over
it changes as the air density changes when flying into the clouds.
Anyone else experience such a strange phenomenon? Have an explanation?
Jim Stone
Louisville KY
275 Hours
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Martin
To: rocket-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: Rocket-List: 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, 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
To: rocket-list@matronics.com
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
To: rocket-list@matronics.com
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)
To: "'nico'" <nico@nicsysco.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:29 PM
<nico@cybersuperstore.com>
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.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.comhref="h
ttp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rocket-Listhttp://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution Checked by AVG.
Checked by AVG.
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! --
|