With an 85-lb jet engine, I should be able to come up with a
two-seater, single engine glider that would be much more affordable and
efficient than the eclipse jet. This plane would be ideal for
pilot/owners who want to fly cross-country in their own jet. Forget 3.6
million, or 850000 dollar price tag. Why not go for a 250,000 dollar
price tag and for a plane that doesn't need a parachute? Any investors
out there? I could build the first prototype for the price of one
eclipse jet.

I have an electrical engineer and a mechanical engineer and I myself am
a geometrical designer. I will design the shape of the plane and
coordinate the various tasks, the electrical engineer will design super
efficient electronic power saving components and the mechanical
engineer will handle the machine parts, tooling, and plastic molding.
We have better- than -DSP electronic motor control technology.

Please let me know if you want to be involved.

http://www.freewebs.com/aircraftpowerelectronics/

You have made my day <G>. Waiting for rains to stop and sitting here unable
to go to hanger to work on my conventially powered, 200 mph, 6 gph,
experimental hombuilt plane project's list of remaining items to go.
Although well past the 90% where it looks like a plane stage (and 90% to go
as the joke goes), the list is still huge when detailed and somewhat
discouraging considering effort/time remaining to be spent. Details take
motre time/effort than I ever imagined.

Now if you want to put that fuel burning 85# jet engine on a "X" winged
fuselage with two sitting tandem with twin tail booms and retracable
tricycle gear, count me in.

Thanks again, Dick
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> With an 85-lb jet engine, I should be able to come up with a
> two-seater, single engine glider that would be much more affordable and
> efficient than the eclipse jet. This plane would be ideal for
> pilot/owners who want to fly cross-country in their own jet. Forget 3.6
> million, or 850000 dollar price tag. Why not go for a 250,000 dollar
> price tag and for a plane that doesn't need a parachute? Any investors
> out there? I could build the first prototype for the price of one
> eclipse jet.
>
> I have an electrical engineer and a mechanical engineer and I myself am
> a geometrical designer. I will design the shape of the plane and
> coordinate the various tasks, the electrical engineer will design super
> efficient electronic power saving components and the mechanical
> engineer will handle the machine parts, tooling, and plastic molding.
> We have better- than -DSP electronic motor control technology.
>
> Please let me know if you want to be involved.
>
> http://www.freewebs.com/aircraftpowerelectronics/
>

On 27 Feb 2005 04:38:43 -0800, "
> wrote:

>With an 85-lb jet engine, I should be able to come up with a
>two-seater, single engine glider that would be much more affordable and
>efficient than the eclipse jet.

You mean, like the Caproni A21SJ jet from the '70s?

http://home.planet.nl/~doormaal/images/first.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~doormaal/califa21s.html

Here's a link to some folks that are doing their own conversion:

http://www.nwlink.com/~orion/caproni.html

Dave "Hammer" Harris (BD-5J airshow performer) is their test pilot, and he gave
a presentation at our local EAA chapter. They're using the same engine as the
BD-5; the price on those is over $100,000.

Ron Wanttaja

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/videogallery.htm
check out the jet powered sailplane here..

also flown in US for airshow demonstrations by Bob Carlton
http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> With an 85-lb jet engine, I should be able to come up with a
> two-seater, single engine glider that would be much more affordable and
> efficient than the eclipse jet. This plane would be ideal for
> pilot/owners who want to fly cross-country in their own jet. Forget 3.6
> million, or 850000 dollar price tag. Why not go for a 250,000 dollar
> price tag and for a plane that doesn't need a parachute? Any investors
> out there? I could build the first prototype for the price of one
> eclipse jet.
>
> I have an electrical engineer and a mechanical engineer and I myself am
> a geometrical designer. I will design the shape of the plane and
> coordinate the various tasks, the electrical engineer will design super
> efficient electronic power saving components and the mechanical
> engineer will handle the machine parts, tooling, and plastic molding.
> We have better- than -DSP electronic motor control technology.
>
> Please let me know if you want to be involved.
>
> http://www.freewebs.com/aircraftpowerelectronics/
>

Ok, I see there is some confusion. Here is a link to the eclipse
aviation jet:
http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_02/08_02_eclipesseespg1.html

I am not a proponent of the eclipse plane because it is backed by Bill
Gates himself. If it flies anything like microsoft windows, I don't
want to be in it. Also, the FAA has no business being involved in
prototype development. The only result I see in the program is a cluge.


I am offering to build a prototype incorporating a similar propulsion
system except with a single engine. The wing and fuselage design will
be of my own. It will be efficient and unsophisticated.

On 27 Feb 2005 21:01:35 -0800, "
> wrote:

>Ok, I see there is some confusion. Here is a link to the eclipse
>aviation jet:
>http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_02/08_02_eclipesseespg1.html
>
>I am not a proponent of the eclipse plane because it is backed by Bill
>Gates himself. If it flies anything like microsoft windows, I don't
>want to be in it. Also, the FAA has no business being involved in
>prototype development. The only result I see in the program is a cluge.
>
>I am offering to build a prototype incorporating a similar propulsion
>system except with a single engine. The wing and fuselage design will
>be of my own. It will be efficient and unsophisticated.

ummm....why did you title this thread, "jet powered personal glider" if you
truly meant an aircraft that would compete head-to-head with the Eclipse? Any
pilot would know the difference between a business jet and a glider. It's hard
to have confidence in your design team when you have such a loose understanding
of fundamental aviation concepts. You said, "I have an electrical engineer and
a mechanical engineer and I myself am a geometrical designer." Any aeronautical
engineers on your design team? Any *pilots* on your design team?

If the answer is, "no" to all those questions, why should prospective investors
have any confidence in your team's ability to design a plane that can beat the
Eclipse? Especially given that the Eclipse team has a five-year head start?
What is your plan for 14 CFR Part 23 qualification?

How does your design compare to the Cessna Mustang?

Ron Wanttaja

First of all, it will be a lightweight single engine plane. The concept
happens to be based on a 85lb jet engine with 750lb of thrust. If there
is catastrophic failure due to running out of fuel, etc., the plane
will be able to glide instead of deploying a parachute like the eclipse
does. I didn't intend to go "head-to-head" with a billion-dollar
project. I simply wanted to provide a worthy alternative for pilots who
don't need the size or expense of the eclipse. It won't promise to
"match" eclipse on any of the specifications. It's a new design
altogether. It isn't a "spin-off" of the eclipse. I only mentioned the
eclipse because that is the plane currently revolutionizing the entire
aerospace industry. I can introduce a plane that can revolutionize the
industry as well, possibly for a broader market. I'm not calling it a
business jet. It is a personal jet capable of gliding, as opposed to
parachuting.

Your other concerns are worthy of consideration. As this project is
hardly a day old, I think the details can be worked out eventually and
it is too soon to say: "oops , no pilot, no aeronautical engineer, no
billion dollars, oh well!!"

Curtis

"I am available for consultation on any subject concerning homebuilt,
kit, or general aviation electrical systems. My experience covers well
over 40 years of hands-on systems diagnostics, and electrical system
component design including DC Starter/Generator Control Units,
Alternator Voltage Regulators, Current Limit devices and other
protective systems, Actuator controls, and Brushless DC Motors.
Products of my design are in service on a significant portion of
general aviation aircraft including Cessna, Sino Swearingen and
Raytheon."
http://www.freewebs.com/aircraftpowerelectronics/pages/services.htm

On 27 Feb 2005 22:10:37 -0800, "
> wrote:

>Your other concerns are worthy of consideration. As this project is
>hardly a day old, I think the details can be worked out eventually and
>it is too soon to say: "oops , no pilot, no aeronautical engineer, no
>billion dollars, oh well!!"

The difficulty is, I'm suspecting you have absolutely no idea what goes into
designing and building an aircraft. I doubt anyone in this newsgroup objects to
discussing new aircraft concepts and alternate ways of efficient flight. I'm
certainly not objecting to you posting about a new airplane concept.

The problem is that you are posting to this group on a hunt for *investors*,
claiming a prototype cost of $250,000, when you:

A. Aren't a pilot
B. Aren't an engineer
C. Have assembled a aircraft design team without an aeronautical engineer
D. Don't know what it takes to build, analyze, static test, or flight test an
aircraft.
E. Aren't familiar with the FAA rules for certifying aircraft.
F. Haven't done a shred of research on the field to know of the other small
jets being developed by companies that HAVE all the above experience. For
example:

http://www.aerocompinc.com/airplanes/CA-Jet/index.htm

Now, pretend I'm a potential investor. The above company, Aerocomp, has been
building small airplanes for ten years, including several turboprop models.
Explain to me why I should invest in your plane instead of theirs.

Finally, I didn't see any mention on the Eclipse web page of their aircraft
having a parachute for airframe recovery, as you claim. They are carrying a
spin-recovery chute during flight testing, a normal precaution. Their
performance page lists a stall speed of 67 knots, which means it will glide
quite nicely without a chute.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:"I could build the first prototype for the price of one
eclipse jet. "

I said prototype cost of 850, 000 and that is the target. The target
for the regular production is 250,000.

That aside, I appreciate your input very much. Thanks for the serious
effort you are putting into this discussion. I will keep everything in
consideration and will be better prepared in future presentations. I am
so fortunate to have people here willing to volunteer their time to
show me where I need to improve.

As far as investors go, I think I should not rely on this forum to find
them. However, as I mentioned, I will be better prepared now that I've
had some feedback.

I will definitely and absolutely defy all bureaucracy until after the
prototype is completed. To reiterate, I will not tolerate any
interference from any government or private agency or institution
during the prototype phase of this project.

Curtis

I consider all of your previous objections to be advantages on my part.

Quote:

"A. Aren't a pilot
B. Aren't an engineer
C. Have assembled a aircraft design team without an aeronautical
engineer
D. Don't know what it takes to build, analyze, static test, or flight
test an
aircraft.
E. Aren't familiar with the FAA rules for certifying aircraft.
F. Haven't done a shred of research on the field to know of the other
small
jets being developed by companies that HAVE all the above experience.
For
example: "

A) Pilots don't design planes, they fly them.
B)I'm not bound to the overhead of having "a career on the line". I
don't know of the accepted design boundaries. I'm not associated with
any university, corporation, or other institution that is going to
thwart any new discoveries by the process of "peer review". Engineers
out there ought to be keenly aware of these handicaps.
C)Same advatages as above.
D)I don't need to know everything. Every task will be deligated to the
most qualified. That's my accepted responsibility.
E)I am determined to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the FAA is a
hinderance to all intellectual activity or scientific discovery. They
will not be necessary for the prototype development and would only get
in the way.
F)I wish not to be influenced by old ideas when my stated objective is
to develop "new" technology!

You're not going to be able to fish design secrets or information
sources from me so give it up. I've had a great time and it's been
entertaining. I wasn't looking for a debate, but it's been fun.

On 27 Feb 2005 23:53:53 -0800, "
> wrote:

>I will definitely and absolutely defy all bureaucracy until after the
>prototype is completed. To reiterate, I will not tolerate any
>interference from any government or private agency or institution
>during the prototype phase of this project.

In which case, I assume that you developing the aircraft outside of the US,
since, by law, you can't fly the airplane here unless the FAA grants you an
airworthiness certificate. Unless you're going for an
Experimental/Amateur-Built license, the FAA won't grant you such a certificate
until you prove to them that the airplane is adequately designed. And the
Exp/Am-Built only lets you build *one* airplane...if you want to go into
production, the FAA *seriously* gets involved.

So...how are you intending to keep then away?

On 28 Feb 2005 00:17:27 -0800, "
> wrote:

>I consider all of your previous objections to be advantages on my part.
>
>Quote:
>
>>"A. Aren't a pilot"
>
>A) Pilots don't design planes, they fly them.

True, but what you are designing will be operated by pilots. TV wasn't
developed by a blind person, nor were computers developed by people who couldn't
handle mathematics.

>>B. Aren't an engineer
>
>B)I'm not bound to the overhead of having "a career on the line". I
>don't know of the accepted design boundaries. I'm not associated with
>any university, corporation, or other institution that is going to
>thwart any new discoveries by the process of "peer review". Engineers
>out there ought to be keenly aware of these handicaps.

Ever hear of a man named Burt Rutan? He's an engineer and aircraft designer,
and doesn't seem to be hindered by "having a career on the line" nor is he
limited by knowledge of the accepted design boundaries. His designs have
bordered on the fantastic, but he hasn't been hindered by any peer reviews.

And you know, *he* doesn't have any problems finding investors....

>>C. Have assembled a aircraft design team without an aeronautical
>>engineer
>
>C)Same advatages as above.

The purpose of an engineering education is to be able to understand *why* things
won't work. Say someone came to you claiming that they had developed a
fantastic new aircraft generator. Say you glanced at the design and noted the
output wires were 26 gauge. Your past experience would tell you this was
totally inadequate...you wouldn't need to install the unit in an airplane to
find this out.

Due to his or her background knowledge, an aeronautical engineer will be able to
prevent the design from dead-end routes. There's little that hasn't been tried,
at some point, and part of an engineering education is to know *why* some things
wouldn't work. Yes, a sharp-edged airfoil is faster...but an aeronautical
engineer would know the drawbacks when it came to slow-speed handling.

>>D. Don't know what it takes to build, analyze, static test, or flight
>>test an aircraft.
>
>D)I don't need to know everything. Every task will be deligated to the
>most qualified. That's my accepted responsibility.

Certainly! But you've already rejected hiring the kind of person (e.g.,
aeronautical engineer) who would *know* how to do this stuff. And without a
general understand of the process, what do you use as a basic for estimating
costs and schedules?

>>E. Aren't familiar with the FAA rules for certifying aircraft.
>E)I am determined to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the FAA is a
>hinderance to all intellectual activity or scientific discovery. They
>will not be necessary for the prototype development and would only get
>in the way.

I think most of us here agree with the sentiment, but the realities of law, as I
explained above, are different.

>>F. Haven't done a shred of research on the field to know of the other
>>small jets being developed by companies that HAVE all the above experience.
>
>F)I wish not to be influenced by old ideas when my stated objective is
>to develop "new" technology!

Start with a basic trade study of ambulatory and communicative skills between
specie and bovine excretatory products....

Ron Wanttaja

" wrote:
>
> I will definitely and absolutely defy all bureaucracy until after the
> prototype is completed. To reiterate, I will not tolerate any
> interference from any government or private agency or institution
> during the prototype phase of this project.

Then it will never leave the ground in any country that has a government.
Certainly not in the US or Europe.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

> Ok, I see there is some confusion. Here is a link to the eclipse
> aviation jet:
> http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_02/08_02_eclipesseespg1.html
>
> I am not a proponent of the eclipse plane because it is backed by Bill
> Gates himself. If it flies anything like microsoft windows, I don't
> want to be in it. Also, the FAA has no business being involved in
> prototype development. The only result I see in the program is a cluge.
>

You clearly don't know anything about designing aircraft, avionics or about
Eclipse. Just because you've tinkered with aircraft motors generators for a
few years don't go thinking you're actually qualified to do anything else.
Your web site doesn't exactly inspire confidence when it says "I'm not
bonded, have no degrees nor am I certified for any purpose..."

To all who have posted in this thread,

I am Bobby Garner, owner of the website located at
http://www.freewebs.com/aircraftpowerelectronics/pages/services.htm I
am not a member of this forum..

Someone named Curtis has quoted me and used this URL rather loosely
here, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no interest in
the subject matter of this thread and have not contributed in any way
to any of the ideas being bantered around here.

Curtis is my son who was visiting and he used my computer to initiate
and post to this group. I have no interest in buildiing an aircraft of
any description. My interest and experience is in general aviation
electrical systems, and electronic component design.

Curtis is an adult and I am not responsible for his actions, or stated
claims.

Bobby Garner

It's already been done, and I doubt 85 lb thrust will get you any kind of
decent performance with two people. Also, remember that small turbine
engines guzzle fuel like there's no tomorrow.

You need to look at the Caproni jet motorglider (240 lbf Microturbo
TRS-18-046), and also at Bob Carlton's Silent Wings motorglider (using AMT
USA twin 45 lbf turbines).

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> With an 85-lb jet engine, I should be able to come up with a
> two-seater, single engine glider that would be much more affordable and
> efficient than the eclipse jet. This plane would be ideal for
> pilot/owners who want to fly cross-country in their own jet. Forget 3.6
> million, or 850000 dollar price tag. Why not go for a 250,000 dollar
> price tag and for a plane that doesn't need a parachute? Any investors
> out there? I could build the first prototype for the price of one
> eclipse jet.
>
> I have an electrical engineer and a mechanical engineer and I myself am
> a geometrical designer. I will design the shape of the plane and
> coordinate the various tasks, the electrical engineer will design super
> efficient electronic power saving components and the mechanical
> engineer will handle the machine parts, tooling, and plastic molding.
> We have better- than -DSP electronic motor control technology.
>
> Please let me know if you want to be involved.
>
> http://www.freewebs.com/aircraftpowerelectronics/
>

(Bobby Garner wrote)
<snips>
> I am Bobby Garner, owner of the website located at
> http://www.freewebs.com/aircraftpowerelectronics/pages/services.htm I
> am not a member of this forum..
>
> Curtis is my son who was visiting and he used my computer to initiate
> and post to this group. I have no interest in buildiing an aircraft of
> any description. My interest and experience is in general aviation
> electrical systems, and electronic component design.


Hey Bobby G,

Stick around. Lurk for a spell if you'd like. This is a great group of
people. These are interesting newsgroups to participate in. You might even
recognize a few of the people who pop in here from time to time.

You could post us a description about your aviation business. Got a plane?
Rent? Student? Where about do you fly out of? Etc. Whatever you want. Nice
group of people here in rec.aviation.owning and over at
rec.aviation.piloting.

rec.aviation.piloting
rec.aviation.owning

Oh, about your boy. Well, what can we say...kids! Which, btw, was an
aviation related topic in a different thread just yesterday.


Montblack

This is Curtis again. I'm sorry that my dad did so little to support my
claims or anything else. Most of you misquoted me and added more to it
than what I said. I didn't say I had no university education. I didn't
say a lot, however, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. If
you need convincing, you belong in another thread or something. No one
has seen a formal contract or statement of any kind because no one has
asked for one. I conclude that all of you are all talk and no action. I
plan to go ahead with formal planning and to have a formal business
proposal, including opportunities for outside involvement, through
investment, or more importantly, intellectual collaboration. This
outside involvement will preferably include people who can read entire
paragraphs before they open their mouth or make any other premature
response.

Curtis Garner