Jet sailplane photos

[Bob C]

Photos from Wednesday's photo mission. I flew formation
with Clayton Stansell's Cessna 175 for about 35 minutes.
The twin AT-450's only required about 50% thrust to
keep the sailplane in the formation at 80 MPH indicated
(about 92 MPH true) at 7000' MSL. Photos by Bill Pearson
of High Altitude Video & Photography.

http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/photogal/closeup_front_m.jpg
http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/photogal/closeup_side_m.jpg
http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/photogal/tumbleweeds_m.jpg
http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/photogal/sunwing_m.jpg

Bob C.

[Doug]

Love it. A glider named "Silent" with jet engines!

"Bob C" > wrote in message
...
> Photos from Wednesday's photo mission. I flew formation
> with Clayton Stansell's Cessna 175 for about 35 minutes.
> The twin AT-450's only required about 50% thrust to
> keep the sailplane in the formation at 80 MPH indicated
> (about 92 MPH true) at 7000' MSL. Photos by Bill Pearson
> of High Altitude Video & Photography.
>
> http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/photogal/closeup_front_m.jpg
> http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/photogal/closeup_side_m.jpg
> http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/photogal/tumbleweeds_m.jpg
> http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/photogal/sunwing_m.jpg
>
> Bob C.
>
>
>

[Gail]

> Love it. A glider named "Silent" with jet engines!

Stealth Glider! ...cool

:)

[Bob C]

Hey, I didn't name it. Considering its Italian origins,
I was thinking of putting 'nazzo' in front of Silent
;o)

Actually, when I passed over the airport at 1000' in
formation, the guys on the ground said mostly they
heard the Cessna. They said after we were well past,
they caught a little bit of the jet exhaust 'whoosh'.

Bob

At 18:54 04 November 2005, Gail wrote:
>
>
>> Love it. A glider named 'Silent' with jet engines!
>
>Stealth Glider! ...cool
>
>:)
>
>
>
>

[George Vranek]

The name Silent is due to the fact, that it was the first self launching
sailplane with an electric motor. Now the machine is awailable as a glider,
as SLS with electric motor, as SL with 2-stroke motor and one blade prop and
as a glider with two jet engines. There is no other machine as the Silent on
all the world. Please have a look at www.alisport.com . Congratulation
Italien boys!

George

"Gail" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
>
> > Love it. A glider named "Silent" with jet engines!
>
> Stealth Glider! ...cool
>
> :)
>
>
>

[wiktor256]

See the video here: http://www.usamt.com/videos/Jet%20Glider.wmv

[rich]

wiktor256 wrote:
> See the video here: http://www.usamt.com/videos/Jet%20Glider.wmv

That's the future for self launch.
Rich

[bumper]

"rich" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wiktor256 wrote:
>> See the video here: http://www.usamt.com/videos/Jet%20Glider.wmv
>
> That's the future for self launch.
> Rich
>

Sure, once they figure out a way to make them quiet, fuel efficient and with
a decent climb rate. I understand they'll roast a mean hot dog, if you like
the flavor of Jet A (g).

bumper
Minden
ASH26E (rotary powered :c)

[Bob C]

Better videos at:
http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/video.html

Click on 'Jet sailplane airshow video'

To answer the issues of noise, fuel efficiency and
climb rate; as I stated in a previous post on this
thread, at 800-1000' AGL, the jet sailplane was much
quieter than the Cessna 175 camera plane. In fact,
I'd wager it's quieter than a rotary powered ASH-26.
Fuel burn is still high, but because of the jet's
preference for higher speeds, I'm able to cruise for
an hour at 95 MPH on 10 gallons. That's a fairly reasonable
9.5 MPG.

Climb rate is 450 ft/min at sea level (at 75 MPH).
I routinely self-launch from Moriarty at 6200' MSL
on hot summer afternoons.

I'll be the first to admit that the jet sailplane is
still under development. However, the engines are
improving at a rapid pace, and there are advatages
that are already very apparent, such as light weight,
low drag when starting/stopping, twin engine reliability
(yes, it will fly on one engine), no vibration and
a simple extend/retract sequence (soon to be a one-button
operation). The engines can be changed out in 15 minutes
with only a screwdriver and an allen wrench, and Fedexed
in a breadbox.

It really will roast a hot dog, and it really will
taste like jet-A. I just use lots of mustard, onions
and relish ;o)

Bob C.



At 02:06 15 November 2005, Bumper wrote:
>
>'rich' wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> wiktor256 wrote:
>>> See the video here: http://www.usamt.com/videos/Jet%20Glider.wmv
>>
>> That's the future for self launch.
>> Rich
>>
>
>Sure, once they figure out a way to make them quiet,
>fuel efficient and with
>a decent climb rate. I understand they'll roast a mean
>hot dog, if you like
>the flavor of Jet A (g).
>
>bumper
>Minden
>ASH26E (rotary powered :c)
>
>
>

[Mike the Strike]

I've seen the Silent jet fly a few times in Arizona and have to agree
that it's quieter than most piston-engine planes - certainly much more
so than our tow planes.

However, these small jets probably need to be made easier to use -
starting currently looks a bit finicky - and more powerful. On a hot
Arizona day, I'd need four of the little suckers to get me comfortably
airborne.

I have to agree that they could have an interesting future.

Mike

[rich]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> I've seen the Silent jet fly a few times in Arizona and have to agree
> that it's quieter than most piston-engine planes - certainly much more
> so than our tow planes.
>
> However, these small jets probably need to be made easier to use -
> starting currently looks a bit finicky - and more powerful. On a hot
> Arizona day, I'd need four of the little suckers to get me comfortably
> airborne.
>
> I have to agree that they could have an interesting future.
>
> Mike


All in due time I'm sure, now for those retrofit STC's.
Rich

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> I've seen the Silent jet fly a few times in Arizona and have to agree
> that it's quieter than most piston-engine planes - certainly much more
> so than our tow planes.
>
> However, these small jets probably need to be made easier to use -
> starting currently looks a bit finicky - and more powerful. On a hot
> Arizona day, I'd need four of the little suckers to get me comfortably
> airborne.

They are currently most attractive to the lighter sailplanes, not the
pilots with a fully ballasted 15 meter racer. A really good fit might be
for sustainer-equiped gliders instead of self-launchers. For that
purpose, the easy operation, low weight, simple installation, low
maintenance, and (relatively) low cost would be ideal. The Silent, for
example, would only need one engine for sustainer use (and only 5
gallons of fuel for 1 hour operation), and noise at ground level
wouldn't be factor at all.

>
> I have to agree that they could have an interesting future.

Glasflugel has announced a jet engine as an option on their 304S glider,
so maybe the future is "now" (or at least, "soon").
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Mike the Strike wrote:
> > I've seen the Silent jet fly a few times in Arizona and have to agree
> > that it's quieter than most piston-engine planes - certainly much more
> > so than our tow planes.
> >
> > However, these small jets probably need to be made easier to use -
> > starting currently looks a bit finicky - and more powerful. On a hot
> > Arizona day, I'd need four of the little suckers to get me comfortably
> > airborne.
>
> They are currently most attractive to the lighter sailplanes, not the
> pilots with a fully ballasted 15 meter racer. A really good fit might be
> for sustainer-equiped gliders instead of self-launchers. For that
> purpose, the easy operation, low weight, simple installation, low
> maintenance, and (relatively) low cost would be ideal. The Silent, for
> example, would only need one engine for sustainer use (and only 5
> gallons of fuel for 1 hour operation), and noise at ground level
> wouldn't be factor at all.
>
> >
> > I have to agree that they could have an interesting future.
>
> Glasflugel has announced a jet engine as an option on their 304S glider,
> so maybe the future is "now" (or at least, "soon").
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

That was Bob Carlson's idea. Instead of 75 gallons of water in my Nimbus 2C
wings, he asked, how about Jet-A? Instead of dumping ballast when running
out of altitude and ideas, burn it in the jet engines and come home. The N2
could cruise at over 100mph for 7.5 hours using Bob's twin jets.

Unfortunately, that 75 Gallons of Jet-A would cost $250 today.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message

>>They are currently most attractive to the lighter sailplanes, not the
>>pilots with a fully ballasted 15 meter racer. A really good fit might be
>>for sustainer-equiped gliders instead of self-launchers. For that
>>purpose, the easy operation, low weight, simple installation, low
>>maintenance, and (relatively) low cost would be ideal. The Silent, for
>>example, would only need one engine for sustainer use (and only 5
>>gallons of fuel for 1 hour operation), and noise at ground level
>>wouldn't be factor at all.
>>
>> >
>> > I have to agree that they could have an interesting future.
>>
>>Glasflugel has announced a jet engine as an option on their 304S glider,
>>so maybe the future is "now" (or at least, "soon").

>
> That was Bob Carlson's idea. Instead of 75 gallons of water in my Nimbus 2C
> wings, he asked, how about Jet-A? Instead of dumping ballast when running
> out of altitude and ideas, burn it in the jet engines and come home. The N2
> could cruise at over 100mph for 7.5 hours using Bob's twin jets.
>
> Unfortunately, that 75 Gallons of Jet-A would cost $250 today.

Think how much a 750 mile (1000+ by car, each way) retrieve would cost
(with motels) - and how long it would take!

I'm also thinking about what would be involved in the tanks for that
much fuel, how you would get 75 gallons of Jet-A into it at the airport,
and if everyone at the airport would scatter when you arrived back to
land after a successful flight - with the 75 gallons still on board. And
also the conversations with the FAA about a glider with 75 gallons of
Jet-A. Life would be interesting, for sure!

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[bagmaker]

That was Bob Carlson's idea. Instead of 75 gallons of water in my Nimbus 2C
wings, he asked, how about Jet-A? Instead of dumping ballast when running
out of altitude and ideas, burn it in the jet engines and come home. The N2
could cruise at over 100mph for 7.5 hours using Bob's twin jets.

Unfortunately, that 75 Gallons of Jet-A would cost $250 today.

Bill Daniels[color+blue]


$250 for 12000 km flying? still sounds cheap!
I hate to throw spanners, but doesnt a micro turboprop fit the bill for us? Nothing I know of available, but.......


Wayne C.

[Bill Daniels]

"bagmaker" > wrote in message
...
>
> That was Bob Carlson's idea. Instead of 75 gallons of water in my
> Nimbus 2C
> wings, he asked, how about Jet-A? Instead of dumping ballast when
> running out of altitude and ideas, burn it in the jet engines and come
home.
> The N2 could cruise at over 100mph for 7.5 hours using Bob's twin jets.
>
> Unfortunately, that 75 Gallons of Jet-A would cost $250 today.
>
> Bill Daniels[color+blue]
>
>
> $250 for 12000 km flying? still sounds cheap!
> I hate to throw spanners, but doesnt a micro turboprop fit the bill for
> us? Nothing I know of available, but.......
>
>
> Wayne C.
>
>
> --
> bagmaker

I'm not sure how well the engine controllers work on these tiny jets but
they should allow them to be more efficient at higher altitudes. The
maximum range could be quite a bit more.

The micro jets are cool because they tuck into the fuselage so neatly and
the residual weight after the fuel is burned is low. Anything with a prop
is clumsy by comparison.

I'm sure they have a future in soaring.

Bill Daniels

[Bob C]

The ECU's compensate for altitude automatically. The
engines do get somewhat better fuel efficiency at higher
altitudes. Unfortunately, single stage turbines suffer
some performance loss with altitude, requiring higher
RPM for the same thrust. Climb rates suffer, but true
airspeeds get better. The cooler temps at altitude
help a lot. In the next few weeks I'm hoping to get
into wave and see what kind of performance I get after
starting them up at 20,000' or so.

As for the finicky starting mentioned by Mike in Arizona,
that problem has been fixed. Turns out I had a bad
fuel preheat tube. I haven't had a balky start since.
I've also cleaned up the wiring and switching a lot.
Starting is very straightforward now. I'll likely
be back in Arizona in the spring to practice acro and
renew my low-level card.

Bob C

At 04:54 16 November 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'bagmaker' wrote in message
...
>>
>> That was Bob Carlson's idea. Instead of 75 gallons
>>of water in my
>> Nimbus 2C
>> wings, he asked, how about Jet-A? Instead of dumping
>>ballast when
>> running out of altitude and ideas, burn it in the
>>jet engines and come
>home.
>> The N2 could cruise at over 100mph for 7.5 hours using
>>Bob's twin jets.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that 75 Gallons of Jet-A would cost
>>$250 today.
>>
>> Bill Daniels[color+blue]
>>
>>
>> $250 for 12000 km flying? still sounds cheap!
>> I hate to throw spanners, but doesnt a micro turboprop
>>fit the bill for
>> us? Nothing I know of available, but.......
>>
>>
>> Wayne C.
>>
>>
>> --
>> bagmaker
>
>I'm not sure how well the engine controllers work on
>these tiny jets but
>they should allow them to be more efficient at higher
>altitudes. The
>maximum range could be quite a bit more.
>
>The micro jets are cool because they tuck into the
>fuselage so neatly and
>the residual weight after the fuel is burned is low.
> Anything with a prop
>is clumsy by comparison.
>
>I'm sure they have a future in soaring.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>

[[email protected]]

Bob, my question is about approved types of fuel.

In the jet aircraft I fly, occasion use of av-gas is approved; however,
some aircraft have a limitation in their Flight Manuals as to how many
gallons of av-gas is allowable before a hot-section inspection becomes
mandated. Av-gas (100% or mixed) is useable in these aircraft for a
couple of reasons: as an emergency return-to-home fuel, and as a way to
control microbal growth in the fuel systems, particularly in tropical
environments.

The downsides of using av-gas in turbine engines are that it burns
hotter and deposits lead on the turbine blades (does the micro jet
engine use turbine blades and a containment ring?). The Lead deposits
reduce the engine's efficiency, and the higher exhaust gas temperatures
simply reduce the life of the components.

But when the chips are down, av-gas can be used...in jet-powered
airplanes. Thus my question: Can the micro-jet engine use av-gas?

Raul Boerner

[[email protected]]

Bob,
In all of the great videos I've seen of you and the jet-powered Silent,
I never saw you retract the engines in the air. Is it impossible
because of temperature? Or is it just a coincidence ?
Thanks
Uri

wrote:
> Bob, my question is about approved types of fuel.
>
> In the jet aircraft I fly, occasion use of av-gas is approved; however,
> some aircraft have a limitation in their Flight Manuals as to how many
> gallons of av-gas is allowable before a hot-section inspection becomes
> mandated. Av-gas (100% or mixed) is useable in these aircraft for a
> couple of reasons: as an emergency return-to-home fuel, and as a way to
> control microbal growth in the fuel systems, particularly in tropical
> environments.
>
> The downsides of using av-gas in turbine engines are that it burns
> hotter and deposits lead on the turbine blades (does the micro jet
> engine use turbine blades and a containment ring?). The Lead deposits
> reduce the engine's efficiency, and the higher exhaust gas temperatures
> simply reduce the life of the components.
>
> But when the chips are down, av-gas can be used...in jet-powered
> airplanes. Thus my question: Can the micro-jet engine use av-gas?
>
> Raul Boerner

[Bob C]

Jet-A or kerosene are the only approved fuels. The
microjets use a small portion of the fuel to lubricate
the bearings, thereby eliminating oil pumps, reservoirs,
seals, etc. Jet-A and kerosene are better lubricants
than gasoline.

The jet engine pylon can be retracted while airborne.
After shutdown, the engines cool to a safe temperature
in about 30 seconds. I have video footage of the retraction,
but it's not on any of the short clips on the website.

Bob C




At 18:06 17 November 2005,
wrote:
>Bob,
>In all of the great videos I've seen of you and the
>jet-powered Silent,
>I never saw you retract the engines in the air. Is
>it impossible
>because of temperature? Or is it just a coincidence
>?
>Thanks
>Uri
>
wrote:
>> Bob, my question is about approved types of fuel.
>>
>> In the jet aircraft I fly, occasion use of av-gas
>>is approved; however,
>> some aircraft have a limitation in their Flight Manuals
>>as to how many
>> gallons of av-gas is allowable before a hot-section
>>inspection becomes
>> mandated. Av-gas (100% or mixed) is useable in these
>>aircraft for a
>> couple of reasons: as an emergency return-to-home
>>fuel, and as a way to
>> control microbal growth in the fuel systems, particularly
>>in tropical
>> environments.
>>
>> The downsides of using av-gas in turbine engines are
>>that it burns
>> hotter and deposits lead on the turbine blades (does
>>the micro jet
>> engine use turbine blades and a containment ring?).
>>The Lead deposits
>> reduce the engine's efficiency, and the higher exhaust
>>gas temperatures
>> simply reduce the life of the components.
>>
>> But when the chips are down, av-gas can be used...in
>>jet-powered
>> airplanes. Thus my question: Can the micro-jet engine
>>use av-gas?
>>
>> Raul Boerner
>
>