![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here is why I was asking about the reverse NACA duct. I am thinking
that a simple venturi would be a great backup to an engine driven pump. Naturally no one wants to add the drag that bolting a venturi tube on the side of the plane would give. So I was trying to think of a way to make it retractable. Then I started thinking about using a NACA duct and keeping the venturi inside the plane, probably in the rear fuselage. You would open a vent when you needed it and keep it closed when you didn't. So the question I have now is how to make sure there is no drag penalty when the venturi is not in use. Would it be necessary to cover both entry and exit holes or would simply shutting a valve to prevent air flow do the job? -- Chris W "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chris W" wrote in message ... Here is why I was asking about the reverse NACA duct. I am thinking that a simple venturi would be a great backup to an engine driven pump. Naturally no one wants to add the drag that bolting a venturi tube on the side of the plane would give. So I was trying to think of a way to make it retractable. Then I started thinking about using a NACA duct and keeping the venturi inside the plane, probably in the rear fuselage. You would open a vent when you needed it and keep it closed when you didn't. So the question I have now is how to make sure there is no drag penalty when the venturi is not in use. Would it be necessary to cover both entry and exit holes or would simply shutting a valve to prevent air flow do the job? -- Chris W "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania I think a better way is to tap engine intake manifold vacuum. I had a Precise Flight system on my Piper Archer that provided full instrument vacuum to 12500 feet at full throttle. I couldn't think of a situation that would be an issue with that sort of backup. (If the engine quits while in hard IMC, you don't need a vacuum backup - you need a parachute.) Better still, get electric instruments. Powering gyro instruments with vacuum should have gone away long ago. Add an avionics bus standby battery that will power the panel longer than the gas will last. Bill Daniels |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
For that matter, spinning iron should have gone away a long time ago,
too. Laser gyros draw less power, are more consistent, don't precess, and have no moving pars save a stream each of electrons and photons. Bill Daniels wrote: "Chris W" wrote in message ... Here is why I was asking about the reverse NACA duct. I am thinking that a simple venturi would be a great backup to an engine driven pump. Naturally no one wants to add the drag that bolting a venturi tube on the side of the plane would give. So I was trying to think of a way to make it retractable. Then I started thinking about using a NACA duct and keeping the venturi inside the plane, probably in the rear fuselage. You would open a vent when you needed it and keep it closed when you didn't. So the question I have now is how to make sure there is no drag penalty when the venturi is not in use. Would it be necessary to cover both entry and exit holes or would simply shutting a valve to prevent air flow do the job? -- Chris W "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania I think a better way is to tap engine intake manifold vacuum. I had a Precise Flight system on my Piper Archer that provided full instrument vacuum to 12500 feet at full throttle. I couldn't think of a situation that would be an issue with that sort of backup. (If the engine quits while in hard IMC, you don't need a vacuum backup - you need a parachute.) Better still, get electric instruments. Powering gyro instruments with vacuum should have gone away long ago. Add an avionics bus standby battery that will power the panel longer than the gas will last. Bill Daniels |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Grieg wrote:
For that matter, spinning iron should have gone away a long time ago, too. Laser gyros draw less power, are more consistent, don't precess, and have no moving pars save a stream each of electrons and photons. Solid State sensors are an option too but I want a way to backup vacuum gyros. -- Chris W "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Chris W" wrote in message ... Here is why I was asking about the reverse NACA duct. I am thinking that a simple venturi would be a great backup to an engine driven pump. Naturally no one wants to add the drag that bolting a venturi tube on the side of the plane would give. So I was trying to think of a way to make it retractable. Then I started thinking about using a NACA duct and keeping the venturi inside the plane, probably in the rear fuselage. You would open a vent when you needed it and keep it closed when you didn't. So the question I have now is how to make sure there is no drag penalty when the venturi is not in use. Would it be necessary to cover both entry and exit holes or would simply shutting a valve to prevent air flow do the job? -- Chris W "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania I think a better way is to tap engine intake manifold vacuum. I had a Precise Flight system on my Piper Archer that provided full instrument vacuum to 12500 feet at full throttle. I couldn't think of a situation that would be an issue with that sort of backup. (If the engine quits while in hard IMC, you don't need a vacuum backup - you need a parachute.) Better still, get electric instruments. Powering gyro instruments with vacuum should have gone away long ago. Add an avionics bus standby battery that will power the panel longer than the gas will last. Bill Daniels I am not familiar with the Precise Flight system, but would expect poor suction based on manifold vacuum at full power. Venturi vacuum, which is also available from some carburetors, works well at most power settings including full power; but is probably not adequate at idle. Therefore, if carburetor venturi vacuum is used, descents and approaches would require partial power to keep the gyros spun up. I don't know whether this is a common feature of aircraft carburetors, and possibly the suction source that Precise Flight uses, as the carburetors I have seen that provided the second suction source have been automotive. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I think a better way is to tap engine intake manifold vacuum. I had a Precise Flight system on my Piper Archer that provided full instrument vacuum to 12500 feet at full throttle. I couldn't think of a situation that would be an issue with that sort of backup. (If the engine quits while in hard IMC, you don't need a vacuum backup - you need a parachute.) Better still, get electric instruments. Powering gyro instruments with vacuum should have gone away long ago. Add an avionics bus standby battery that will power the panel longer than the gas will last. Bill Daniels I am not familiar with the Precise Flight system, but would expect poor suction based on manifold vacuum at full power. Venturi vacuum, which is also available from some carburetors, works well at most power settings including full power; but is probably not adequate at idle. Therefore, if carburetor venturi vacuum is used, descents and approaches would require partial power to keep the gyros spun up. I don't know whether this is a common feature of aircraft carburetors, and possibly the suction source that Precise Flight uses, as the carburetors I have seen that provided the second suction source have been automotive. The Precise Flight (I'm not sure they are still in business) device tapped the left rear intake riser on the Lyc O-360 with a tube mounted into the rubber hose . It was manually engaged with a pull knob operated valve that switched the vacuum source from the vacuum pump to the manifold tap. Of course, both the vacuum pump and the manifold vacuum sources used the vacuum regulator to deliver the right vacuum to the instruments. I was surprised that it provided full instrument vacuum at full throttle - but it did. Vacuum gyros only need about 3 - 5 inches of water column and even a clean new engine air filter produced at least this amount of pressure drop. It worked extremely well. Bill Daniels |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Daniels wrote:
I think a better way is to tap engine intake manifold vacuum. I had a Precise Flight system on my Piper Archer that provided full instrument vacuum to 12500 feet at full throttle. I couldn't think of a situation that would be an issue with that sort of backup. (If the engine quits while in hard IMC, you don't need a vacuum backup - you need a parachute.) Better still, get electric instruments. Powering gyro instruments with vacuum should have gone away long ago. Add an avionics bus standby battery that will power the panel longer than the gas will last. Bill Daniels I am not familiar with the Precise Flight system, but would expect poor suction based on manifold vacuum at full power. Venturi vacuum, which is also available from some carburetors, works well at most power settings including full power; but is probably not adequate at idle. Therefore, if carburetor venturi vacuum is used, descents and approaches would require partial power to keep the gyros spun up. I don't know whether this is a common feature of aircraft carburetors, and possibly the suction source that Precise Flight uses, as the carburetors I have seen that provided the second suction source have been automotive. The Precise Flight (I'm not sure they are still in business) device tapped the left rear intake riser on the Lyc O-360 with a tube mounted into the rubber hose . It was manually engaged with a pull knob operated valve that switched the vacuum source from the vacuum pump to the manifold tap. Of course, both the vacuum pump and the manifold vacuum sources used the vacuum regulator to deliver the right vacuum to the instruments. I was surprised that it provided full instrument vacuum at full throttle - but it did. Vacuum gyros only need about 3 - 5 inches of water column and even a clean new engine air filter produced at least this amount of pressure drop. It worked extremely well. Bill Daniels Aha! I was thinking 3 to 5 inches of mercury! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chris
Some of the Century Series Fighters had a RAT (Ram Air Turbine). It was mounted on a hinged door and was deployed by a handle and cable from the cockpit. It gave enough hydraulic pressure for minimal control of the A/C with loss of engine hydraulic pressure. If you connected a ventura on a hinged spring loaded door that could be extended into the slip stream when needed your problem might be solved simply and with not a lot of extra weight or drag in normal flight? You also could put a vacuum pump, that is propeller driven, on door that could be extended if and when needed. You of course need to mount door to open in a high pressure location in the slip stream. Big John On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 08:20:49 -0600, Chris W wrote: Here is why I was asking about the reverse NACA duct. I am thinking that a simple venturi would be a great backup to an engine driven pump. Naturally no one wants to add the drag that bolting a venturi tube on the side of the plane would give. So I was trying to think of a way to make it retractable. Then I started thinking about using a NACA duct and keeping the venturi inside the plane, probably in the rear fuselage. You would open a vent when you needed it and keep it closed when you didn't. So the question I have now is how to make sure there is no drag penalty when the venturi is not in use. Would it be necessary to cover both entry and exit holes or would simply shutting a valve to prevent air flow do the job? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reverse NACA duct | Chris W | Home Built | 22 | October 28th 03 10:59 PM |