Gnarly Gnu Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Ideal if you are building a Komet jet in your shed or just want to give the Jabiru a bit of a kick along: "As part of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) supersonic turbine engine for long-range (STELR) program, both are working on compact jet engines that would propel cruise missiles at speeds of up to Mach 3.2, or 2,435 miles an hour." 1
Downunder Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Saw this fly last Sunday, but don't think it made Mach 3.......(Never the less, it was impressive!) 4
Litespeed Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Love that Cri Cri. But the range would suck for about 15 minutes.
Nobody Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Love that Cri Cri. But the range would suck for about 15 minutes. Who cares about range. He is likely the only guy at a fly in who flew there in a twin jet!!! 3 1
Litespeed Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 True but might have to trailer it to a very close airfield, then fly in. But bugger it, I volunteer.
DrZoos Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Where is this beast located??? Thats one high canopy design
Nobody Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Where is this beast located???Thats one high canopy design That one I believe is in Western Australia. It is a Cri Cri. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colomban_Cri-cri They normally are twin prop but have been done as electric as well as jet. 1
Litespeed Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 EADS did a electric one. Must faster than petroleum. Due to drag. The canopy needs the height for av.Joe to fit. 1
eightyknots Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Ideal if you are building a Komet jet in your shed or just want to give the Jabiru a bit of a kick along:"As part of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) supersonic turbine engine for long-range (STELR) program, both are working on compact jet engines that would propel cruise missiles at speeds of up to Mach 3.2, or 2,435 miles an hour." I don't know whether the Jab needs a kick along as you suggest. How about this becoming the Jabiru's replacement engine?
Gnarly Gnu Posted October 2, 2015 Author Posted October 2, 2015 Sure, send a couple of missiles over to CASA for certification. 2 2
Dieselten Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 The smaller the turbojet engine the less fuel-efficient it is. This is definitely a case where size does matter. A cruise missile is extremely aerodynamic at its design cruise-speed, and it's only got to carry enough fuel for a one-way trip. You really don't want it turning around and coming back! Until kerosene weighs nothing - and costs less - we'll never see a practical small jet engine on a small aeroplane.
DrZoos Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Sure, send a couple of missiles over to CASA for certification. 1 2
Marty_d Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Woo hoo, that's one's carrying the satellite which, hopefully, will give me better internet one day.
DrZoos Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Kevins still on his way with the fibre, just hold your breath and he will be coming past any day
planedriver Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Till then just get on with the building. We're all waiting for some pic's of your Zenith. How long before it's finished Marty?
eightyknots Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Till then just get on with the building.We're all waiting for some pic's of your Zenith. How long before it's finished Marty? Yes, pictures Marty
Marty_d Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Till then just get on with the building.We're all waiting for some pic's of your Zenith. How long before it's finished Marty? Latest are in the Zenith CH-7o1 thread... but here they are. Currently working on the flaperons but given I've only bashed one flaperon rib into shape, hardly worth photographing. 2
Methusala Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 That one's SpacEX. the internet sat was an Arianne out of Guinea I think. Don
Kiwi303 Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Close enough for Govt work, they're both big Effing rockets. 1
Marty_d Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 For any sci-fi fans out there, I just watched The Martian (Matt Damon). Absolutely fantastic. Make sure you visit the facilities first though, the damn thing goes for almost 3 hours. 1
jetboy Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Nah,......the Martian Jet pac only goes for 45 minutes ......and its the only jet I know of which isnt actually a jet
Guest ozzie Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Ducted fans, shrouded propellers, turbo fans, turbo jets, pure jets? Lots of myths and debate here. ready steady........
Kiwi303 Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Is a Fan Jet a Ducted Fan or a Shrouded Propeller? http://www.fraseraerotechnologycompany.com/Rohr_2-175_Fan_Jet.html 1
pylon500 Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Is a Fan Jet a Ducted Fan or a Shrouded Propeller? Guess it could be either. General feeling is 'Fan - Jet', means a fan (shrouded) turned by a jet engine. 'Ducted Fan', usually implies a shrouded fan turned by a reciprocating engine. Very few people use the term 'Shrouded Propellor', as propellor usually refers to a largish (in proportion to the aircraft) airscrew of up to five blades. I say this, as once you go to six blades, people tend to refer to them as fans again. So ducted fan implies five blades or more, inside a shroud. ps; if you want a ducted fan to work, you really need to put flow straighteners behind the fan...
facthunter Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Small diameter turbines MUST run high speed. Being small, they don't have much thrust, so you don't accelerate fast and they are noisy and not fuel efficient. Coupling to a prop via a reduction gear, OR having a high ratio of fan bypass air with increasingly complex internal aerodynamics, gives better thrust . Higher internal temps in the cycle give more thermal efficiency, but requires expensive metallurgy. Turbines are multiples of the reliability of piston engines, which are just not in the same league. Nev
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