On 12 Jul, 02:25, bagmaker
wrote:
-
The Jet as of today is as a sustainer, completely computer controlled
and
fixed power. Though it is designed as a sustaine the factory test
flights
were accomplished with a short 50' auto tow with rather remarkable
climb and
cruise performance. -

Thanks Tim-

Fixed power as in non-throttling?
Can you give us a burn time/saw-tooth range estimate yet?
Everyone will be hanging on with questions like -altitude loss before
full power time, noise output, electric requirements, actual thrust
available -all the details so sparse from eastern europe.

Thanks,
bagger

--
bagmaker


The Schempp-Hirth website says the jet Ventus 2cxaJ gets a pretty
marginal 0.6 to 0.7 m/sec (say 130 f/min) climb from the AMT Olympus
turbine which [according to the very detailed pdf specification sheet
available through their website at http://www.amtjets.com] produces
230N max thrust. Fuel burn is quoted as 0.6 to 0.8 litres/min.

The HPH Shark uses the TBS-J40 turbine which produces 400N rated max
thrust. [http://www.wingsandwheels.com/pdf/30...Turbine01.pdf]

The (proposed but in abeyance) Hollister jet club say about the Jet
Shark's performance: "The best rate of climb is about 550 fpm at 75
knots and you still get 125 fpm at 95 knots." [http://
www.soarhollister.com/jet_club.htm]

If correct that would be a big difference in performance between the
two gliders for an extra 70% or so of thrust in the Shark. The
Hollister site quotes a fuel consumption of 12 gal/hour which
(assuming it is small US gallons) equates to 0.76 litres/min - pretty
much the same as SH quote for the much less powerful Olympus.

I am not sure that it all adds up - but it would be a hoot if it did!

John Galloway