25 is magic number

[tongaloa]

mission requirements
250 kt cruise
2500 kt range
250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
25,000 ft cruise altitude

doable?

[O-ring Seals]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:21:50 -0500, tongaloa >
wrote:

>mission requirements
>250 kt cruise
>2500 kt range
>250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
>25,000 ft cruise altitude
>
>doable?
>
>


Sure. As long as the 'stuff" does not include fuel; and if size,
weight, and cost are not important to you. BTW, range is not
expressed in 'kt'. A Cessna 421 may be just about right for you.
Sounds like a troll, but I an responding anyway.

O-ring Seals

[Rich S.]

"O-ring Seals" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:21:50 -0500, tongaloa >
> wrote:
>
> >mission requirements
> >250 kt cruise
> >2500 kt range
> >250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
> >25,000 ft cruise altitude
> >
> >doable?
> >
> >
>
>
> Sure. As long as the 'stuff" does not include fuel; and if size,
> weight, and cost are not important to you. BTW, range is not
> expressed in 'kt'. A Cessna 421 may be just about right for you.
> Sounds like a troll, but I an responding anyway.
>
> O-ring Seals

Hey Bob........

How 'bout strapping a saddle on a V-1 or a Baka Bomb???

Rich S.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, tongaloa > wrote:

> mission requirements
> 250 kt cruise
> 2500 kt range
> 250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
> 25,000 ft cruise altitude
>
> doable?

Sure. For about $250,000.

:)

Bob K.

[tongaloa]

O-ring Seals wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:21:50 -0500, tongaloa >
> wrote:
>
>
>>mission requirements
>>250 kt cruise
>>2500 kt range
>>250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
>>25,000 ft cruise altitude
>>
>>doable?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Sure. As long as the 'stuff" does not include fuel; and if size,
> weight, and cost are not important to you. BTW, range is not
> expressed in 'kt'. A Cessna 421 may be just about right for you.
> Sounds like a troll, but I an responding anyway.
>
> O-ring Seals


Not a troll.

Living in HI and wanting to travel in Pacific.
Size and weight are considerations, hence the 250lb
limit for pilot and 'stuff'(change of cloths, some tools, water, oil).
Fuel efficiency is a consideration with Pacific prices.
Speed and range matter for say HNL-NSTU-FUN. Fuel is often not
available at FUN.

-t

[Corky Scott]

>rlier, tongaloa > wrote:
>
> mission requirements
> 250 kt cruise
> 2500 kt range
> 250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
> 25,000 ft cruise altitude

The 2500 mile range is likely doable, after all, Lindbergh managed it
with 1927 technology. What he did was take an airplane and modify it
so that it was a flying gas tank. That required a number of
modifications to the original airframe to beef it up so it would hold
that much gas and not collaps when landing or clap the wings in
turbulence. He also had a gas tank in front of him such that it
totally blocked any view straight ahead. He compensated for that but
hanging his head out the open window. Not something I'd recommend at
25,000 feet. You've heard of the Voyager, Dick Rutan and Jeanna
Yeager flew it around the world with what they carried internally for
gas. That was a one off type airplane, and Burt Rutan has designed
another to duplicate the feat, this time jet powered and it will fly a
lot higher and faster than the Voyager.

The 25000 mile cruise altitude is of course obtainable, you just need
to size the wings accordingly and supercharge the engine somehow.
It's not new, it's done all the time by certified airframe
manufacturers. You'll need full time oxygen at that altitude, and a
lot of it if you are traveling 2,500 miles.

The big problem to me is the 250 kt cruise speed. There aren't many
singles that can manage that, those that do are running a pretty big
or they aren't big or both. Pretty big engines pulling an airplane
along at 250 kts don't get great milage, but perhaps that can be
compensated for by putting in enough fuel tanks. But then the wings
get larger and cost more drag and you have to beef up the airframe in
order to be safe and now you need more power to pull it through the
air. Tis a dilemma.

You are probably talking about a one-off type airplane. Maybe you
should speak with Mr. Rutan.

Corky Scott

[tongaloa]

Corky Scott wrote:
>>rlier, tongaloa > wrote:
>>
>>mission requirements
>>250 kt cruise
>>2500 kt range
>>250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
>>25,000 ft cruise altitude
>
>
> The 2500 mile range is likely doable, after all, Lindbergh managed it
> with 1927 technology. What he did was take an airplane and modify it
> so that it was a flying gas tank. That required a number of
> modifications to the original airframe to beef it up so it would hold
> that much gas and not collaps when landing or clap the wings in
> turbulence. He also had a gas tank in front of him such that it
> totally blocked any view straight ahead. He compensated for that but
> hanging his head out the open window. Not something I'd recommend at
> 25,000 feet. You've heard of the Voyager, Dick Rutan and Jeanna
> Yeager flew it around the world with what they carried internally for
> gas. That was a one off type airplane, and Burt Rutan has designed
> another to duplicate the feat, this time jet powered and it will fly a
> lot higher and faster than the Voyager.
>
> The 25000 mile cruise altitude is of course obtainable, you just need
> to size the wings accordingly and supercharge the engine somehow.
> It's not new, it's done all the time by certified airframe
> manufacturers. You'll need full time oxygen at that altitude, and a
> lot of it if you are traveling 2,500 miles.
>
> The big problem to me is the 250 kt cruise speed. There aren't many
> singles that can manage that, those that do are running a pretty big
> or they aren't big or both. Pretty big engines pulling an airplane
> along at 250 kts don't get great milage, but perhaps that can
> compensated for by putting in enough fuel tanks. But then the wings
> get larger and cost more drag and you have to beef up the airframe in
> order to be safe and now you need more power to pull it through the
> air. Tis a dilemma.
>
> You are probably talking about a one-off type airplane. Maybe you
> should speak with Mr. Rutan.
>
> Corky Scott

Well maybe, since I can't speak to Ted Smith.
Was posting in the event that someone might have done some paper
scratching and cared to reveal.

-t

[Morgans]

"Corky Scott" > wrote
> > mission requirements
> > 250 kt cruise
> > 2500 kt range
> > 250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
> > 25,000 ft cruise altitude
>
> You are probably talking about a one-off type airplane. Maybe you
> should speak with Mr. Rutan.
>
> Corky Scott

How about a CJ, or a falcon?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/04

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:21:50 -0500, tongaloa >
wrote:

>mission requirements
>250 kt cruise
>2500 kt range
>250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
>25,000 ft cruise altitude

250kt cruise is really pushing it in a piston engined airplane. A 421
can max out at 250kts, but cruise will be more like 220-230kt. The
only exception might be a Lancair IV-P and this was posted to the
homebuilt newsgroup, so that's a thought.

2500nm range is not do-able in any production light aircraft, and for
that matter probably isn't do-able in any reasonable homebuilt
aircraft. Many corporate jets do not have that kind of range.

250 lb useful load is easy - any plane that comes close to the other
specs will have this useful load.

25000 cruise altitude is attainable via turbocharged engines, and will
likely be a requirement to hit 250kt cruise.

-Nathan

[tongaloa]

Nathan Young wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:21:50 -0500, tongaloa >
> wrote:
>
>
>>mission requirements
>>250 kt cruise
>>2500 kt range
>>250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
>>25,000 ft cruise altitude
>
>
> 250kt cruise is really pushing it in a piston engined airplane. A 421
> can max out at 250kts, but cruise will be more like 220-230kt. The
> only exception might be a Lancair IV-P and this was posted to the
> homebuilt newsgroup, so that's a thought.

Will have a look.
Aerostar does 250kt OK at 25000. TIO 540's.
Range is limited by 38-42GPH and gross - empty = 2000 lb.

Looking for single that can do the 250kt and max gross - empty = big
enough number for fuel plus 250lb.

[ET]

tongaloa > wrote in :

> Nathan Young wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:21:50 -0500, tongaloa >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>mission requirements
>>>250 kt cruise
>>>2500 kt range
>>>250 lb (pilot and 'stuff')
>>>25,000 ft cruise altitude
>>
>>
>> 250kt cruise is really pushing it in a piston engined airplane. A 421
>> can max out at 250kts, but cruise will be more like 220-230kt. The
>> only exception might be a Lancair IV-P and this was posted to the
>> homebuilt newsgroup, so that's a thought.
>
> Will have a look.
> Aerostar does 250kt OK at 25000. TIO 540's.
> Range is limited by 38-42GPH and gross - empty = 2000 lb.
>
> Looking for single that can do the 250kt and max gross - empty = big
> enough number for fuel plus 250lb.
>
>

http://www.youngeagles.org/15000pics/15035.html

Probably does not have the range though...

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Nathan Young]

Lancair IV fitted with extra tanks in lieu of seating might work.

http://www.lancair-kits.com/Lancair_IV.html

Cruise 330mph (280kts)

Extended fuel option = 110 gallons
Range = 1550 sm = 1347 nm
fuel consumption = 18-22gph

So to make up the remaining 1200nm of range required, you need 4.3 hrs
of fuel or 94 more gallons. 94 gallons = 564 lbs

The Lancair has a 1500lb useful load, so subtracting the 204 gallons
(1224 lbs of fuel) = 276 lb of useful remaining. Just enough for the
250lbs pilot + gear.

-Nathan

[tongaloa]

Thanks you.
Just submitted some more resumes and purchased a lottery ticket ;-)
-bob

>
> The Lancair has a 1500lb useful load, so subtracting the 204 gallons
> (1224 lbs of fuel) = 276 lb of useful remaining. Just enough for the
> 250lbs pilot + gear.
>
> -Nathan
>

[Jay]

Thats what I was thinking. He is asking for an especially long range
but also an especially small payload for that power of airplane. So
the real technology is how to fill up the plane with all that extra
fuel?

Internal wing tanks, more complex but puts the load where you want it,
so you aren't going to fold the wings up if you hit turbulence.

Diesel may be one technology to look at, already turbo for high alt,
and very fuel efficient. Have to need a lot of gas to justify the
lower power/weight ratio of the power-plant itself.

Another point to make is extended flight over water is usually done by
multi-engine aircraft for obvious reliability reasons. The Pacific
Ocean is a big place; I'm not sure how comfortable I'd feel with the
possibility of a single point failure in the most complex system in
the aircraft causing me to ditch.


tongaloa > wrote in message >...
> Thanks you.
> Just submitted some more resumes and purchased a lottery ticket ;-)
> -bob
>
> >
> > The Lancair has a 1500lb useful load, so subtracting the 204 gallons
> > (1224 lbs of fuel) = 276 lb of useful remaining. Just enough for the
> > 250lbs pilot + gear.
> >
> > -Nathan
> >