|
I saw one of these in person for the first time a few days ago as it buzzed over our SAM site. The one I saw was cammo rather than the gaudy show colors. It is the smallest manned jet in the world.
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
I think this is probably one of my favorite "crash" photos. It's like the plane just said, "Hey guys I'm a bit tired, think I'll just rest here for a bit." 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I saw one of these in person for the first time a few days ago as it buzzed over our SAM site. The one I saw was cammo rather than the gaudy show colors. It is the smallest manned jet in the world. I want one of those.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:our SAM site. Wait, what now? Tell me more, now please!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 06:10
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Wait, what now? Tell me more, now please! The USAF has Surface to Air Missiles too! And those little jets (Bede BD-5's) are actually used as manned drones for target practice, simulating stuff like cruise missiles. History Channel aired an episode of Modern Marvels that had them just a few days ago. It was also used by James Bond in Octopussy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I saw one of these in person for the first time a few days ago as it buzzed over our SAM site. The one I saw was cammo rather than the gaudy show colors. It is the smallest manned jet in the world. Get the tinker toys out of here. Big helicopters are where it's at.  Click here for the full 950x406 image.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:Wait, what now? Tell me more, now please! I'm in an Army Patriot Battalion and we just got back from WTI, which is a course in the mountains outside Yuma, AZ that trains up primarily Marines who will be planners of offensive and defensive air warfare. Ground-based air defense units, Air Force aircraft, Marine aircraft, Navy aircraft, and a few coalition aircraft take part. We proceed to execute whatever plan the students worked out. If the plan sucks, we die, and they refine their plans for the next evolution. The scenario simulates a scenario in which the friendly country initially only has ground-based air defense and over time becomes reinforced with more and more friendly aircraft until the last iteration where the Marines practice assaulting into the aggressor country, which is when ground-based air defense units like mine switch sides and play the enemy trying to defend their homeland. Those tiny SMART-1 jets are used to simulate cruise missiles since they are harder for some radars to pick up, and they fly the things at very low level. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 14:02 on May 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 13:59
|
|
|
Wait, those aren't built by the same company that builds the SMART car are they?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
jandrese posted:Wait, those aren't built by the same company that builds the SMART car are they? Smart car was created by Daimler-Benz Im pretty sure. Now owned by Daimler AG.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 16:49
|
|
|
Tindjin posted:I think this is probably one of my favorite "crash" photos. A VERY expensive accident, wouldn't like to have been the guy explaining that one to the boss. Here's ANOTHER Russian take off video, will he, won't he?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JemlhkWUzfo
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:A VERY expensive accident, wouldn't like to have been the guy explaining that one to the boss.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 17:38
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:A VERY expensive accident, wouldn't like to have been the guy explaining that one to the boss. We have Smirnoff! check out THAT landing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtnL4KYVtDE Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:Here's ANOTHER Russian take off video, will he, won't he?? Less than a full page after the last time this was posted, and I think maybe the fourth time in this thread. Jeez.   Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 19:02 on May 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
 Click here for the full 1000x750 image.  Click here for the full 1000x750 image.  Click here for the full 1000x750 image. Don't really know what to say about that
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
superdylan posted:
Is that a twin-V8 powered drone????
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
A twin-turbo twin v8 drone at that, and I'm guessing maybe twin counter rotating props too? Although that looks suspiciously like a canopy under the white sheet. Manny fucked around with this message at 22:23 on May 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
Yeah I was just gonna say, I don't think that's a drone.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
superdylan posted:
....This isn't going to work... Quantrill fucked around with this message at 00:02 on May 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
Anyone have any more information on what that thing is? It looks incredible.Manny posted:A twin-turbo twin v8 drone at that 2 x Turbocharged V8? Looks like the right hand turbo feeds along the top right of the first V8 to the rear engine. blambert fucked around with this message at 01:11 on May 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
Those are superchargers.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
Looking at the website, I'm starting to wonder if that twin turbo V-8 thing is some kind of insane gyrocopter? The only reason I think so is that the guy's website has a bunch of gyrocopter pictures and that would explain the stubby little wings.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
Quantrill posted:....This isn't going to work... dont you ruin this for us
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 01:47
|
|
|
I've never seen a gyrocopter with a front mounted prop... I can see what you mean though. I emailed him to ask.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 01:48
|
|
|
Quantrill posted:....This isn't going to work... Seeing as those appear to be auto engines (small-block Chevys in this case, I think), I tend to agree. With a couple exceptions, auto engines are totally unsuited for an aircraft application. Put simply, an auto engine isn't designed to run for hundreds or thousands of hours on end at high power settings. Unless this guy is building some sort of race aircraft or a purpose-built record breaker (where an engine life of a few dozen hours might be acceptable), I can't see this being useful for anything other than rapidly conveying its pilot to the scene of its impending accident or forced landing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
I'm really intrigued to know more about this. It looks like it would be some kind of racer with such a thin wing, but it doesn't look that light, using a metal frame instead of a composite monocoque. Must have such a high wing-loading, unless there's more lifting surface we haven't seen.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 02:53
|
|
|
I think I can sum up the last few posts in just a few words: Reach for the skies, man! Just for the love of God, get it on video.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
superdylan posted:
This is probably going to be a racer at the Reno Nationals. I'd bet you anything. Possibly in the unlimited class?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
Boomerjinks posted:This plane has a great history to it. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cnsearch=21190/272&distinct_entry=true "Using its airlines for humanitarian purposes, El Al broke another record in May, 1991. At that time, an El Al Boeing 747 airlifted a record-breaking 1,087 passengers -- Ethiopian Jews flying from Addis Ababa to Israel as part of Operation Solomon." Same plane. NightGyr fucked around with this message at 04:19 on May 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 04:17
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Put simply, an auto engine isn't designed to run for hundreds or thousands of hours on end at high power settings. High power settings? A Cessna Skyhawk will cruise all day at 105 knots and the Lycoming up front only makes 160 horsepower. Meanwhile the new 5.0 Mustang engine can put out 400 horsepower, and part of the testing cycle is subjecting the engine to exactly what you said it isn't designed to do: hundreds of hours under load at near-redline. Edit: It is a high power setting for the aircraft engine, but that's because the Lycoming design is 55 years old. The idea that car engines are unsuitable for aviation use is just an outdated line of thinking from the days when it was difficult to squeeze 200 horsepower out of a small engine. Today that's so stupidly easy that there really is no issue with reliability.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
Even on racers, auto engines don't have a great track record. In the late 1980's, Burt Rutan and Bob Pond designed an aircraft intended to compete in Reno class against the WW2 warbirds that dominated the Unlimited class. The resulting aircraft (dubbed Pond Racer) bore a passing resemblance to a P-38, but was an entirely new design that was constructed of lightweight composite materials and used a pair of highly modified Nissan VG30 engines, intended to produce about 1,000hp each.  Click here for the full 800x543 image. In order to do away with intercoolers for the turbocharged engines, Pond Racer was designed to run on methanol, and the engines required a massive preheat before starting (due to extremely tight tolerances), and needed external cooling upon landing to avoid heat-soaking the composite engine cowlings. Pond Racer first flew at Reno in 1991, and qualified at a respectable 400mph, but didn't fly in the actual race. Shortly after takeoff for the main race, Pond Racer suffered a mechanical failure when the left engine threw a rod out of the block, but the pilot was able to land safely. During development of the engines, Pond Racer suffered a string of oil related issues, with the engines tending to "puke" oil overboard at an appalling rate, usually resulting in bearing and connecting rod failures due to oil starvation. Eventually it was discovered that the engine problems were caused by undersized oil passages in the rocker heads, which was due to the fact that the car-sourced engines weren't designed for sustained running at high RPM, but not before the aircraft went through quite a few engines. After a second place finish in 1992 (albeit in the Bronze class), Pond Racer returned to Reno in '93. During qualifying, Pond Racer abruptly pulled up off the course, with pilot Bob Pond telling the ground crew that there was a problem with the right engine, and a controller advised Pond that the aircraft was trailing smoke. As Pond Racer turned back for landing, a puff of smoke was seen from the right engine, followed quickly by the right propeller seizing in position without the blades feathering to reduce drag. Shortly after the engine failure, Pond Racer impacted the ground, killing the pilot and bringing an end to the program. After the accident, it was discovered that the right engine had experienced two connecting rod failures due to oil loss (the oil loss was the cause of the initial smoke), which lead to the rods punching holes in the oil pan, crankcase and water jackets of the engine, causing the seizure.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 06:15
|
|
|
Wait. He modified a Nissan VG30. As in the 3.0L, <300 hp VG30? To get 1,000 horsepower? ..... I know it's Burt Rutan and all, but that's just loving retarded. You wouldn't expect an aircraft to make 333% of the power it was designed for and then expect it to run reliably either. Idiots trying less than that are why people who still have Merlins don't sell them to guys who race at Reno.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
So who is the go-to place for piston aircraft engine these days?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
Not Nissan, apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 06:59
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:So who is the go-to place for piston aircraft engine these days? There are three major manufacturers for piston aircraft engines currently in business, with two of those companies controlling the vast majority of the market. Lycoming (owned by the same parent company as Cessna) and Teledyne-Continental are the two biggest piston engine makers, with both selling lines of horizontally opposed, air cooled engines ranging from ~100HP 4-cylinder models, up to 6 and 8(for Lycoming) cylinder versions in the 300-400hp range. The engines are incredibly expensive, with the smaller engines going for around $35,000 new, and the biggest 8 cylinder Lycoming selling for about $120,000. A rebuilt engine runs in the $25,000-80,000 range, and overhauling an engine (which happens about every 2,000 hours), runs from $12,000 for small engines up to around $70,000 for the bigger models. Both Lycoming and Continental produce engines that are almost exclusively direct drive (they redline at around 3000RPM) and run on leaded fuel, but some of their larger engines run through a reduction gear setup on some aircraft models. The third player in the piston market is Rotax, which produces engines for smaller light sport or homebuilt aircraft. Rotax started out making engines for snowmobiles and jet-skis, but branched out into aircraft engines some time ago. Unlike Lycoming and Continental, Rotax engines are all reduction geared (with the engines running around 5,500rpm with a 2.43:1 reduction gearbox to let the propeller rotate at a normal speed. Rotax engines are also liquid cooled and generally run on premium auto gas, since they don't play well with the lead content found in Avgas. There is a company called Austro that recently introduced a diesel engine for aircraft use. The AE-300 is a liquid cooled diesel engine (although it runs on Jet-A in aircraft) that puts out around 170HP, but does so using about 50% less fuel than a conventional piston engine would. Homebuilt aircraft run on pretty much anything you can think of, with Volkswagen and Subaru engines being quite popular for their reliability and horizontally opposed design. ApathyGifted posted:Wait. He modified a Nissan VG30. As in the 3.0L, <300 hp VG30? To get 1,000 horsepower? As far as I can tell. The engines were based on the VG30, but were heavily modified and built by a company called Electramotive. I can't find any information as to exactly what was modified on the engines, likely because they were purpose built for Pond Racer and were way too unreliable for any other application. azflyboy fucked around with this message at 08:02 on May 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 07:57
|
|
|
azflyboy, that's a pretty bad example of automotive reliability although it was definitely interesting and postworthy. I've been reading quite a bit about auto engines in kit planes and yes, the track record isn't all that good. But the common failure scenario is not due to mechanical failure under higher than normal stress. One big deal is reduction gear which is needed to bring the 4-5000 rpm powerband of the auto engine down to sub-3000 rpm at the prop. The power pulses causes torsional vibration which can eat up the cogs. Then there's electric reliance. Most auto engines need electricity for ignition and fuel delivery. Kit builders are often very skilled and do a lot of research but it only takes one poor ground to put your rear end on the ... uuh..ground...poorly. A "Lycosaur" just needs to spin, gravity supplies fuel and magnetos supply spark. Then there's cooling. Even if these kit builders are often very skilled, designing a good cooling system in your garage that can shed heat effectively from an auto engine running at high power at high altitude is a real engineering challenge. And without the help of a stress rig with simulated air flow and density, you can only rely so much on what previous builders have done. Every installation is unique and the early flights become real test pilot stuff - and there's no ejection seat in an RV-7. Cost and technological superiority are the most common reasons for choosing auto engines. But given the modifications, fabrication, redundancy and limitations, it often ends up as costing more, weighing more, developing less hp while needing to shed more heat, burn more fuel and being systemically less safe due to higher complexity. Of course, some auto installations work very well and have 1000+ hours. And every week there's one or more Lycoming failures somewhere in the world that ends in a forced landing. The next big thing is of course diesel. The first to hit the market properly was Thielert, R.I.P. Underpowered, overweight and critically reliant on electricity to run the FADEC - utterly failing to capitalize on the inherent advantages of a diesel. The two (or was it just one? don't remember) in service in Norway suffered multiple cooling, mechanical and software problems. One in Sweden had a complete electric failure during (if I remember correctly) a student's first solo x-country. He had to land in a fairly built up area and came away with minor injuries and no small amount of kudos for the feat. Then there's a British company called Wilksch, don't know much about the design but they do have some 100/120 hp engines flying in customer installations. The most interesting company is Deltahawk http://deltahawkengines.com/ They've been around the corner for years and years but they seem to be spending their time properly on testing, they seem to have good funding and their design is quite inspired. Two stroke, V4, dual charged (parallel charged is a more apt term I guess), liquid cooled, mechanically fed, jet fuelled compression igntion. No need for reduction gear, runs without electricity, but in sum the installtion is more complex and probably heavier than a Lycoming.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 08:04
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:used a pair of highly modified Nissan VG30 engines, intended to produce about 1,000hp each. well there's his problem, those bastard engines explode/catch on fire/spin bottom end rod bearings with monotonous regularity.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
I've heard of people having success with Subaru engines in light aircraft. It's more complex, but you get advantages like heat for the cockpit and reasonably priced parts, not to mention improved fuel consumption figures and HP.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 14:02
|
|
|
superdylan posted:
It's a drat modern-day Gee Bee. Except, you know, with twin supercharged V-8's, and counter-rotating props. 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The third player in the piston market is Rotax, which produces engines for smaller light sport or homebuilt aircraft. Rotax started out making engines for snowmobiles and jet-skis, but branched out into aircraft engines some time ago. Rotax engines work just fine on AVGAS. The Predator/I-GNAT/Warrior/Mariner/Name-Of-The-Week all burn it. It's easier to procure in theater, less likely to absorb moisture, and increases reliability while reducing head temps. UAVs give aerospace manufacturers a lot of room to experiment, no human cost and all. There's an I3 liquid cooled TDi made by Mercedes powering one particular UAV right now. I believe it was the engine from a particular SMART car, but i'm not certain. I've only seen the engine in prototype form, but I hear it has a prop clutch, which is loving awesome for the ground crew. I'll check and see if the maintenance intervals are classified.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Skyssx posted:Rotax engines work just fine on AVGAS. The Predator/I-GNAT/Warrior/Mariner/Name-Of-The-Week all burn it. It's easier to procure in theater, less likely to absorb moisture, and increases reliability while reducing head temps. Rotax engines can run on Avgas, but the lead causes deposits to form in the engine, which isn't great for them. I pulled this from the website of a Rotax service center regarding use of 100LL in their 4-stroke engines. Rotax service center posted:It is possible but not recommended to use 100LL AVGAS, since the the lead content is like cholesterol to your engine: it will accelerate wear on the valve seats, create deposits in the combustion chamber and sediments in the lubrication system and gearbox. Increased maintenance is necessary to compensate. Unlike "conventional" aircraft engines, lead is absolutely not essential to the proper lubrication and operation of a Rotax 4-stroke aircraft engine. The increased octane rating also has no marked advantage for the operation of your engine.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 19:24
|
|