Jet power ultralight?
Tony W,
on the website is small and only develops 37 pounds of thrust but the book
they sale includes plans for 2 other engines in 80 and 130 pound thrust.
The 130 engine weighs only 23 pounds.
I found it linked to this site about a jet power homebuilt that is still
under development.
http://www.admitpoint.com/russellaircraft/
Anyway how much thrust does it take to get an ultralight in the air? I'm
not saying that I'm going to put one of these on an ultralight but it's
worth thinking about.
Tony
Michael Coates
bigger planes but they have a limitation and that's the fuel consumption,
apparently they can use up to 40 gallons per hour at Ultralight altitudes and i
know i could not afford to feed a beast like that
Regards Michael
"Tony W," wrote:
--
Best Wishes, Michael Coates
Sydney, Australia. Home of the 2000 Olympics
Email mco...@mcp.com.au
X-Air Web Site: http://www.mcp.com.au/xair
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been, and there you long to return."
ssparky
article on it. It might have been in KITPLANES, but I can't remember for
sure. Does anyone remember this? I'd love to see a follow up on if it's
still flying.
"Tony W," <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mocF5.26351$cY3.4...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Soupdragon
to have been" flown in the UK. I'm not sure what the thrust was, but I
reckon you should be able to struggle off the ground with less than 40lbs.
There is a guy in the UK that manufactures a powered hang glider harness
called the Doodlebug, his name is Ben Ashman, he has built a JPX gas turbine
powered version of this, don't know if it's flown yet though.
Jerry.
"Michael Coates" <mco...@mcp.com.au> wrote in message
news:39E558FB...@mcp.com.au...
Robert Provins
>
> www.windspire.com sells plans to build a pulsejet engine. The one they show
> on the website is small and only develops 37 pounds of thrust but the book
> they sale includes plans for 2 other engines in 80 and 130 pound thrust.
> The 130 engine weighs only 23 pounds.
the pulse jet I saw running put out more noise than you'd ever believe,
for 30 lbs thrust.
go past a mall @ 5,000 feet with that on an ul and the people in the
parking lot will have trouble talking to each other.
Daniel Grunloh
"ssparky" <sspa...@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Someone was flying one at 'Sun'n Fun' a few years back. I saw a magazine
>article on it. It might have been in KITPLANES, but I can't remember for
>sure. Does anyone remember this? I'd love to see a follow up on if it's
>still flying.
A mitchell B-10 flying wing was flown with a small jet engine
and it was quite a sensation. It was strange to hear a jet
flying overhead and yet it takes a long time to pass by.
Unfortunately the noise level is high and fuel use is so high
that about 20 minutes of flight was the limit.
--------------
Daniel Grunloh (gru...@uiuc.edu)
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh
Jim Auguston
of thrust. It is so loud that you cannot stand near it without hearing
protection. Also is not throttleable. It burns 6 0z of Coleman lantern
fuel a minute. You can imagine what a 80 lb thrust engine would burn.
Jim Auguston
Bellingham, Wa.
Ross Carlisle
acceptable for short hops around the airport. Problem is that you wont fly
much of anything with 37lbs of thrust. The 130lb engine burns about 40
gallons per hour. In order to get anywhere near decent performance you
would need 2 of them. Thats 80 gallons per hour. These things just dont
work in light aircraft. They burn way too much fuel. Im not saying it cant
be done. If you are satisfied with 15 minutes of flight time...go for it.
Just incase you are thinking that 130lbs of thrust is enough, I have a
backpack paramotor that makes 160lbs of thrust and that feels underpowered
flying a paraglider. Attach the same 160 lbs of thrust to a 254lb UL and
you probably wont be able to taxi in tall grass.
Ross
Tony W, <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mocF5.26351$cY3.4...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> www.windspire.com sells plans to build a pulsejet engine. The one they
show
> on the website is small and only develops 37 pounds of thrust but the book
> they sale includes plans for 2 other engines in 80 and 130 pound thrust.
> The 130 engine weighs only 23 pounds.
>
Tony W,
Tony
Michael Coates <mco...@mcp.com.au> wrote in message
news:39E558FB...@mcp.com.au...
Tony W,
Robert Provins <rpro...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> the pulse jet I saw running put out more noise than you'd ever believe,
> for 30 lbs thrust.
>
> go past a mall @ 5,000 feet with that on an ul and the people in the
> parking lot will have trouble talking to each other.
That is something I hadn't considered. BTW, I thought ultralights were not
allowed to fly over populated areas?
Tony
Tony W,
why we don't have too many jet powered homebuilt aircraft. I suspect it
would take a fan-jet to get the economy to run a light plane but then it
would probably prohibitively expensive.
Tony
Ross Carlisle <rrc...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:8s4np4$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Fuel burn on the 37Lb model is about 10 gallons per hour...Which would be
> acceptable for short hops around the airport. Problem is that you wont
fly
> much of anything with 37lbs of thrust. The 130lb engine burns about 40
> gallons per hour. In order to get anywhere near decent performance you
> would need 2 of them. Thats 80 gallons per hour. These things just dont
> work in light aircraft. They burn way too much fuel. Im not saying it
cant
> be done. If you are satisfied with 15 minutes of flight time...go for it.
>
> Just incase you are thinking that 130lbs of thrust is enough, I have a
> backpack paramotor that makes 160lbs of thrust and that feels underpowered
> flying a paraglider. Attach the same 160 lbs of thrust to a 254lb UL and
> you probably wont be able to taxi in tall grass.
>
> Ross
>
> Tony W, <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mocF5.26351$cY3.4...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Ross Carlisle
beat a Rotax engine.
Ross...
Tony W, <techn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HsnF5.28810$cY3.5...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Tony W,
> Expensive and too heavy. For power vs weight vs fuel burn you just cant
> beat a Rotax engine.
>
> Ross
When I was working on snowmobiles for a living, Rotax, Yamaha were the top
performing 2 stroke engines with Suzuki and Kawasaki not far behind. I'm
working on my own ultralight design and if I build it, it could very well
have a Rotax power plant. I have plenty of time to decide on an engine. If
I can get it under the weight limit, I might use a 4 stroke motorcycle
engine.
When I ran across the pulse jet engine, I was more curious about why a 58
pound engine that makes 130 pound of thrust would not have been tried on an
ultralight. Now I know, it's a pig.
Tony
David M. Brodbeck
> Expensive and too heavy. For power vs weight vs fuel burn you just cant
> beat a Rotax engine.
--> As someone said once...piston engines might seem clunky and dated, but
if we'd developed turbines first, the piston engine would seem a great leap
forward in economy for small planes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Brodbeck, N8SRE dmbr...@mtu.edu
finger gu...@cyberspace.org for my public key block.
"...there have always been wealthy people in America. But in the past,
our elite knew they were elite and admitted it. Today....no matter how
fancy their lifestyle, they refuse to see themselves as privilaged...
[They] tend to feel little obligation to anybody but themselves and
a select group of peers." -- Kenneth A. Cherney, Jr.
Nils Rostedt
aircraft. Their fuel burn is somewhat less than this pulsejet. For example,
http://www.cat-ing.de/turbines/ have a 26 lbs unit that burns 5.5 gph and
weighs 2.9 lb. Scaling this up 8x to something practical, we'd get 208 lb
thrust, 44gph and engine weight of 23 lb. Thirsty, but might be
practicable.
Better yet, the AMT Olympus (http://www.amtjets.com/) delivers 42.5 lb at
about 11 gph, and weighs 5.3 lbs.
/Nils
Some links to model jet sites can be found at
http://www.ukjets.demon.co.uk/links.html
Daniel Grunloh
"Nils Rostedt" <sai...@dlc.fiNOSPAM> wrote:
>Please be aware of all the turbojets being built nowadays for model
>aircraft. Their fuel burn is somewhat less than this pulsejet. For example,
>http://www.cat-ing.de/turbines/ have a 26 lbs unit that burns 5.5 gph and
>weighs 2.9 lb. Scaling this up 8x to something practical, we'd get 208 lb
>thrust, 44gph and engine weight of 23 lb. Thirsty, but might be
>practicable.
>Better yet, the AMT Olympus (http://www.amtjets.com/) delivers 42.5 lb at
>about 11 gph, and weighs 5.3 lbs.
Thirsty yes. With our measily 5 gallon limit for ultralights
it would be a six minute airplane. It would be so cool though
to mount 4 of them on a bomber replica. Pilot flying prone.
A 1/4 scale model should do it.
"Podunk traffic, Ultralight B-29 replica reporting inbound
at 45 mph. Requesting jet fuel."
George Vigneron
final.... that would almost be worth it!! lol
George Vigneron
go to gallery and check out the third one down on the first column.
I first saw this french homebuilt in Kitplanes many years ago, and I
think it weighed 220 pounds at that time with two 2 cycle engines on the
pylons. Now with these little jets it shows to be 170 kg and I suspect
that is with the pilot up. Not a "fat" ultralight but a registered
airplane and the performance isn't too bad, high cruise of 150 and
single engine perf of 100. hmmmm... not too bad!
Computer Services
recall which one though. I beleive it included photo's of it flying.
Nils Rostedt <sai...@dlc.fiNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:8sfoel$187$1...@tron.sci.fi...
> Please be aware of all the turbojets being built nowadays for model
> aircraft. Their fuel burn is somewhat less than this pulsejet. For
example,
> http://www.cat-ing.de/turbines/ have a 26 lbs unit that burns 5.5 gph and
> weighs 2.9 lb. Scaling this up 8x to something practical, we'd get 208 lb
> thrust, 44gph and engine weight of 23 lb. Thirsty, but might be
> practicable.
> Better yet, the AMT Olympus (http://www.amtjets.com/) delivers 42.5 lb at
> about 11 gph, and weighs 5.3 lbs.
>