dazza 38 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Hi Maj, when i typed my post, Nevs post wasnt on my screen or Fd,s. I started typing and then one thing lead to another and i mowed the lawn, then went back to finish it.LOL I just read it.Top Explanation from Nev and Yourself.:thumb_up: PS- The F14 A Tomcat also used Pratt And Whitney TF 30 engines. Not sure of the dash number.Eg- Our F111 C aircraft where TF30 -107 engines.The G models we acquired Where TF 30-109 engines.The A model Tomcat had alot of problems with Compressor Stalls , Flames Outs, power surges from the TF 30 Engines. The Super Tomcat F14 D, models where built with GE Engines.Also the F111 Damaged the Deck on there Carrier Tests.They couldnt get the weight out of the A/C.Hence Grumman who originaly worked with General Dynamics to design the F111 at its early stages.Went on to Design and Built the Tomcat. In a nut shell- I totally agree about the PW TF30 engine, as you have mentioned, they are slow to spool up and they have other problems as well.(Thats why some sumpies used to call them "Crap and *****ney" Our C models F111, had from time to time Flame outs, and power surges etc.A part of the reason was that the C model had Translating Cowls, That move forward and open up a Gap.To let more air into the intake at Taxing, low Speed .The G models had Blow in doors and a wider Intake.They where a bit slower than the C model in top speed due to More Drag than the smaller Intake C models. Also the Intake Spike which moves forward and expands to decrease the size of the intake at or approaching supersonic speeds,(to slow down the Airflow inside the intake to subsonic speeds) would play up a bit, and stall the Compressor and flame out the engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Yes Dazza, the airflow into the intake is a big thing, especially in odd attitudes. The Mirage had blow-in doors and moveable shock-cones in the intakes. We also used large leaf blowers at full throttle into the intake, for start ups. If the leaf blowers went U/S, so did the No1 operational fighters as they were in the 70s', as they wouldn't start without them !......................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Yes Dazza, the airflow into the intake is a big thing, especially in odd attitudes. The Mirage had blow-in doors and moveable shock-cones in the intakes. We also used large leaf blowers at full throttle into the intake, for start ups.If the leaf blowers went U/S, so did the No1 operational fighters as they were in the 70s', as they wouldn't start without them !......................................................Maj... I realy miss the Mirage, even though i was only a Young fella, when they were around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 After all that first class educational material, I am wondering what else I didn't know I didn't know will come to light. Something hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Yenn, What don't you know ...maybe somebody will know ? Dazza, the Mirage was a dart with a very big engine, they didn't carry a lot of fuel and were normally fitted with what were called 'supersonic-tanks' externally. They were a high altitude interceptor after all, and could go supersonic with them on. If they wanted more they had a large center-line tank, plus the supers on the wings. Average sortie time was only around an hour or often less, and sometimes out to 1 hour 20 with the right tankage, and pilot. When going down the line topping up the on-board oxygen, you always could tell who were the hotshots ,and who were the rookies, by the amount of oxygen breathed in an hour. Also the sweat on the seat cushions was a dead giveaway too. The hotshots didn't sweat much. We always knew we were going somewhere (Townsville ,Darwin) when we would spend a week fitting all aircraft with 'ferry tanks'. these were with two large center-line tanks, one on each wing, in place of the supers, for max endurance (bit over two hours) if all went well. When we arrived, off they came again ,and back on went the supers !. Lot of work and you usually got covered in kero doing it, which was great for the tan. Was very exciting watching the takeoffs with the maxxed out big ferry tanks on board. They took most of the Willytown runway to get off, and one cough and it's ejection time, followed by a large black mushroom cloud as happened once in Darwin. I was very lucky to score two dual Mirage rides (A3-112) with 77 Sqn. That dual was later nicknamed 'Dulcy the dual' which I see has been continued with the 77Sqn F-18 Hornet Dual. fun times for sure.........................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Hi Major, I was Lucky enough to do my Advance Practical training on the Mirage at Wagga Wagga in 1988 (Only two or Three weeks From memory).We were the 2nd Airframe course to use the Mirage as our Training Aid.The previous Courses used the Sabre. We all used the Winjeel for basic Practical Training.The last couple of days has brought back some Great memories, on this thread. Sorry for going off Topic Guys. Ps- I never got a ride in a Pig.But did in a Huey and Squirrel.My brother got a ride in a PIG.I was spewing, i did 8.5 years on them.He did about 5 years.He was a Warrant Officer System Technician and me a Corporal Atech rank had its advantages i guess LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 A pig ride would have been exciting for sure. I was sent up to Amberly for a couple of days to get familiar on the F-4 phantom while we had them. Boy I tried like hell to get a ride in one of those, but to no avail.......................................maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 What ever happened with this turbo prop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisso Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Hi Maj, when i typed my post, Nevs post wasnt on my screen or Fd,s. I started typing and then one thing lead to another and i mowed the lawn, then went back to finish it.LOL I just read it.Top Explanation from Nev and Yourself.:thumb_up:PS- The F14 A Tomcat also used Pratt And Whitney TF 30 engines. Not sure of the dash number.Eg- Our F111 C aircraft where TF30 -107 engines.The G models we acquired Where TF 30-109 engines.The A model Tomcat had alot of problems with Compressor Stalls , Flames Outs, power surges from the TF 30 Engines. The Super Tomcat F14 D, models where built with GE Engines.Also the F111 Damaged the Deck on there Carrier Tests.They couldnt get the weight out of the A/C.Hence Grumman who originaly worked with General Dynamics to design the F111 at its early stages.Went on to Design and Built the Tomcat. In a nut shell- I totally agree about the PW TF30 engine, as you have mentioned, they are slow to spool up and they have other problems as well.(Thats why some sumpies used to call them "Crap and *****ney" Our C models F111, had from time to time Flame outs, and power surges etc.A part of the reason was that the C model had Translating Cowls, That move forward and open up a Gap.To let more air into the intake at Taxing, low Speed .The G models had Blow in doors and a wider Intake.They where a bit slower than the C model in top speed due to More Drag than the smaller Intake C models. Also the Intake Spike which moves forward and expands to decrease the size of the intake at or approaching supersonic speeds,(to slow down the Airflow inside the intake to subsonic speeds) would play up a bit, and stall the Compressor and flame out the engine. Hi Dazza 38. To put the record straight, The original F111's came with TF30-P103 engines. The F111G's came with TF30-P107 engines. When the USAF phased out their F111's, the RAAF were offered a number of TF30-P109 engines from theUSAF fleet of various model F111's. When viewed from a couple of metres away both the P103 and P109 engines with their Afterburners (AB), fitted, are banana shaped - with only a few degrees out of wack from the 'Core' Engine with the AB fitted, whereas the F111G (P107's) were more in-line between the 'Core' and AB. To enable the F111C (and RF111C's), and F111G's to have a more common engine type, they modified the P109 core engine aft turbine section to be exchanged easily to accept either a P109 AB or a P107 AB and called it the TF30-P108. Cheers Chrisso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Hi Dazza 38. To put the record straight, The original F111's came with TF30-P103 engines. The F111G's came with TF30-P107 engines. When the USAF phased out their F111's, the RAAF were offered a number of TF30-P109 engines from theUSAF fleet of various model F111's. When viewed from a couple of metres away both the P103 and P109 engines with their Afterburners (AB), fitted, are banana shaped - with only a few degrees out of wack from the 'Core' Engine with the AB fitted, whereas the F111G (P107's) were more in-line between the 'Core' and AB. To enable the F111C (and RF111C's), and F111G's to have a more common engine type, they modified the P109 core engine aft turbine section to be exchanged easily to accept either a P109 AB or a P107 AB and called it the TF30-P108.Cheers Chrisso Simple numerical mistake.I was a Aircraft Technician on the F111 for 8.5 years. I was at Amberley when we bought the G models.I was going by memory, not google.I left there in April 1998. I think I am starting to suffer from CRAFT.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingo Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share Posted October 29, 2012 Hey Kyle, project still there, just got a bit slow now that works got busy again, but did order a prop. the other day so that should get thing going again when it gets here. Did find some more info on the engine, and looks like may have under stated it a bit, its 140 shp@ 67kgs AUW that should get thing cranking. Brett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Holy Crap ...140hp your lucky it didnt pull that forklift as well......what was it going into again?.....was it a gyro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingo Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 Yes , will test this one in a gyro first, that way if I have any hiccups with the engine can put down next to no ground roll . After all the testing then will put one in a plane, would like to get over the 160 kt , any suggestion something light and has a suitable VNE. Brett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Arion Lightning has a Vne of 180 kts. Might pay to talk to Dennis Borchardt at Goolwa http://www.lightningaircraft.com.au/links.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 A lightning with a turbo prop, now that would be a nice machine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 no that would be a weapon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I would put it in a RV but would be difficult to get it into RAA of course whatever you decide it has to have a huge fuel capacity..that engine would be pretty thirsty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 How long is it, Brett? The engine that is, from prop flange to aft of the exhaust? Could you redo the exhaust for tractor configuration? After successful airborne testing on a gyro and if it physically fitted, perhaps you might be interested in fitting it into this actual aircraft: You would be doing faster than 160 knots (normal top speed with 100hp 2 stroke is around 200kias with a Vne of 225) and it only has one seat. We could come to some arrangement... It's ready to fly (done around 40 hours already), it just needs to be re-engined (we wont be flying it again with the AMW that's in it!) Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 now THAT would be a weapon with that turbine in it...please excuse my ignorance but what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 It is called a Lightning Bug. It was designed and released as a kit in the US in the early '90s but the designer finished up production after 16 kits due to the fear of liability. Myself and a mate have purchased the remaining kits/components/molds/tooling etc. and rights for the Bug from it's former owner with the intention to refine and release the Bug in kit form. We have the Australian demonstrator under construction in Adelaide and that one is receiving a Jab3300 (tin hat on!!) which should be flying next year. The one in the photo is our US demonstrator, but we are in the process of selecting a suitable powerplant for it. Once selected and fitted, we will thoroughly test the aircraft so that we can release accurate and verifiable data on it's performance. It has wheelpants yet to be fitted to finish off the cleaning up of the airframe. Here is another Bug photo of one that has flown in the US: I used a Bug kit as the basis for my Komet jet project which could be the second product off our production line, given the large commonality of parts. Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 You'll be selling Komet jets? *empties money box on to table and starts counting* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 If my personal one works as anticipated, yes Howie, we will be looking at making it available as a kit, given that we already have the molds and tooling for most components. Bear in mind that it is intended to be a purely fun machine, not at all practical. And the engines are thirsty!! However, with a completed price of under that of many LSA's, there may be some people that are interested... The wings should be finished in 3 weeks, the tailplane is complete and mounted and I have some big build sessions on the fuselage coming up. By Christmas, it will really be looking like the real McCoy. Keep an eye on my threads here and here for updates on progress. Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Have you considered a racing rotary as used in outboards? They have good characteristics for a fast plane. Turbine engines (small) will be very thirsty and you probably need a complex prop. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Hi Nev, If anyone can point me in the direction of a suitable powerplant for the Bug, I'm all ears. We have a few under consideration but all of them are compromises on the original concept of a closely cowled 100hp 2 stroke. We may still put the fairly bullet-proof Rotax 912/914 in it, but we've looked at all the 2 strokes (Hirth/Simonini etc.), the D-motor, Jabiru, AeroVee, etc. and we don't have a "perfect" engine yet for it. The main feature of the Bug design is it's capability for real speed (i.e. 200 knots) but to make the Bug a success, it must have a suitable, reliable, affordable powerplant. We've looked at several rotary conversions but have not found a suitable one yet. If you know of any, please let me know in case we haven't yet seen that product. Bear in mind that engine bay space on the Bug is at a premium. As for a prop, with the large speed range of the Bug (60 - 200kias), we are looking at IFA props to maximise it's performance potential. The existing props start running out of pitch at around 180 knots so we are definitely looking at IFA options for the "performance" Bug. A "regular" Bug would be ok with a fixed pitch prop up to around 180kias, but for those with the real need for speed, we will definitely be working with an IFA prop maker to provide an optimum performance prop for those who are pepared to pay the extra for more knots. If Kingo's T62 conversion is viable and reliable, and we could organise for conversions to be made readily available (such as Helicycle do with their T62 conversions), it might be a nice option to be able to offer for the Bug. This is why I am watching Kingo's conversion with interest and would be keen to see it in a Bug, once it had a history of safe operation in a gyro. Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Hi Nev,If anyone can point me in the direction of a suitable powerplant for the Bug, I'm all ears. We have a few under consideration but all of them are compromises on the original concept of a closely cowled 100hp 2 stroke. We may still put the fairly bullet-proof Rotax 912/914 in it, but we've looked at all the 2 strokes (Hirth/Simonini etc.), the D-motor, Jabiru, AeroVee, etc. and we don't have a "perfect" engine yet for it. The main feature of the Bug design is it's capability for real speed (i.e. 200 knots) but to make the Bug a success, it must have a suitable, reliable, affordable powerplant. We've looked at several rotary conversions but have not found a suitable one yet. If you know of any, please let me know in case we haven't yet seen that product. Bear in mind that engine bay space on the Bug is at a premium. As for a prop, with the large speed range of the Bug (60 - 200kias), we are looking at IFA props to maximise it's performance potential. The existing props start running out of pitch at around 180 knots so we are definitely looking at IFA options for the "performance" Bug. A "regular" Bug would be ok with a fixed pitch prop up to around 180kias, but for those with the real need for speed, we will definitely be working with an IFA prop maker to provide an optimum performance prop for those who are pepared to pay the extra for more knots. If Kingo's T62 conversion is viable and reliable, and we could organise for conversions to be made readily available (such as Helicycle do with their T62 conversions), it might be a nice option to be able to offer for the Bug. This is why I am watching Kingo's conversion with interest and would be keen to see it in a Bug, once it had a history of safe operation in a gyro. Cheers, Dave Have you considered a 110hp Viking engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now