Vans RV-11

If you take a look at the Vans Aircraft website.
You will find the story and pictures of the RV-11.
Looks cool.

Scott.

Here is the link:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-11int.htm





At 17:18 28 December 2003, Scott Correa wrote:
If you take a look at the Vans Aircraft website.
You will find the story and pictures of the RV-11.
Looks cool.

Scott.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:02:46 -0600, "Scott Correa"
wrote:

If you take a look at the Vans Aircraft website.
You will find the story and pictures of the RV-11.
Looks cool.

Scott.



About a month ago I had the fortune to be able to discuss this project
with the man himself. Looks interesting with some good ideas about
reducing drag while the engine is not running.

It is however a proof of concept vehicle not a kit prototype at this
stage and is using the HP 18 wings.

Mike Borgelt

Scott Correa wrote:
If you take a look at the Vans Aircraft website.
You will find the story and pictures of the RV-11.
Looks cool.


I think it is an interesting idea, but if it is
simply a grob 109 or an HP-18 self-launcher,
I don't think there would be much market.

On the other hand, a metal glider with a
turbine self-launch would be interesting.

Gliders are extremely elegant and clean.
Turbines are also quite elegant and reliable,
with the only drawback being fuel consumption.
For self-launch gliders this is not very
important, since only minutes
of climb are needed anyway.

The benefit is the simplicity. Those silly
retract booms or the awkward gear and prop
of a Grob 109 are inelegant.

So how about a single turbine putting out
150# thrust? Burns maybe 25 gallons an hour?
And a small size (8" by 8" by 12")?
Boy it'd be nice if they were made of some
material that cooled real fast (ceramics?)
so it could be retracted quickly.

I saw the twin 40# thrust glider jet. I'd
rather have a single, more powerful turbine.
Simpler, and I'd imagine cheaper.

Throttle response should be no issue at all.
When landing, if you want to do a go around,
just land with full throttle and using spoilers
to destroy lift. If you want to go around,
close spoilers fully. If you're landed and stopped,
throttle back the engine.

I wonder about the glass vs. metal advantages
with a turbine, however. Weight is a real
issue (so a Sparrowhawk turbine would be nice)
for acceleration for takeoff. But heat and
structural fastening seem to be important too.

And then the fuel weight vs. capability (runway
length) issue seems important.

Hmmm...I hope Van's builds a Proof of Concept
turbine glider. I'd like to see an experienced
designer pick up this ball and approach the
idea of "personal jets" from a minimalist
point of view...

"Mike Borgelt" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:02:46 -0600, "Scott Correa"
About a month ago I had the fortune to be able to discuss this project
with the man himself. Looks interesting with some good ideas about
reducing drag while the engine is not running.

It is however a proof of concept vehicle not a kit prototype at this
stage and is using the HP 18 wings.

Mike Borgelt

I believe, that www.icon.fi/~jtki/3dimens.html could be a good point for a
discussion how to use the HP 18 wings.

George

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:3fefb612$1@darkstar...

So how about a single turbine putting out
150# thrust? Burns maybe 25 gallons an hour?
And a small size (8" by 8" by 12")?
Boy it'd be nice if they were made of some
material that cooled real fast (ceramics?)
so it could be retracted quickly.


What would really be nice is a small turboprop - a lot more reliable
than any recip, and much more efficient (and quieter) than a pure jet.

Heavier, though, and you are back to the pylon, unless you put it on
the tail; or in the nose - and there we are back to the RV-11 or Carat
configuration.

But a turboprop would allow a nice pointy nose, and with a feathering
prop...

Kirk

The turboprop is also a lot more suitable for a pusher installation than any
recip. Have a look at www.icon.fi/~jtki/3dimens.html

George

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
om...
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
news:3fefb612$1@darkstar...

So how about a single turbine putting out
150# thrust? Burns maybe 25 gallons an hour?
And a small size (8" by 8" by 12")?
Boy it'd be nice if they were made of some
material that cooled real fast (ceramics?)
so it could be retracted quickly.


What would really be nice is a small turboprop - a lot more reliable
than any recip, and much more efficient (and quieter) than a pure jet.

Heavier, though, and you are back to the pylon, unless you put it on
the tail; or in the nose - and there we are back to the RV-11 or Carat
configuration.

But a turboprop would allow a nice pointy nose, and with a feathering
prop...

Kirk

Not a great idea. Turboprops cost, even in the cheapest incarnation several
hundred thousand $s and the lowest powered engines available are really big
and heavy compared to what is needed. A warp drive proton engine would be
suitable though.

I don't like the idea of a touring motor glider. I don't see the point,
they don't glide well enough to be much use as a glider except in
exceptional conditions.

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
om...
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
news:3fefb612$1@darkstar...

So how about a single turbine putting out
150# thrust? Burns maybe 25 gallons an hour?
And a small size (8" by 8" by 12")?
Boy it'd be nice if they were made of some
material that cooled real fast (ceramics?)
so it could be retracted quickly.


What would really be nice is a small turboprop - a lot more reliable
than any recip, and much more efficient (and quieter) than a pure jet.

Heavier, though, and you are back to the pylon, unless you put it on
the tail; or in the nose - and there we are back to the RV-11 or Carat
configuration.

But a turboprop would allow a nice pointy nose, and with a feathering
prop...

Kirk

"
Gliders are extremely elegant and clean.
Turbines are also quite elegant and reliable,
with the only drawback being fuel consumption.
For self-launch gliders this is not very
important, since only minutes
of climb are needed anyway.

I agree with much of what you say but fuel consumption is actually important
to get the full utility of a self launcher. If you want to do a tour for
example and go from place to place then you often need to relaunch without
refuelling or you may want to cruise a while to get into wave or good
soaring. If you go on a long task and totally misjudge the weather you may
need forty minutes of engine time and most of your fuel in a petrol engine
machine just to get home.

John Mason wrote:
Not a great idea. Turboprops cost, even in the cheapest incarnation several
hundred thousand $s and the lowest powered engines available are really big
and heavy compared to what is needed. A warp drive proton engine would be
suitable though.


I saw a web site with turboprop based on one of the large model airplane
turbines, but can't find it now. It was attached to about a 50-60 inch
propeller.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA