vintage motorglider for sale

On Mar 7, 8:52*pm, JohnDeRosa wrote:
And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? *It
glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

well, i could say something about a 1-26, but my Cherokee isn't much
better...

On Mar 7, 7:52*pm, JohnDeRosa wrote:
And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? *It
glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

Troop gliders were gliders-not sailplanes.

On Mar 7, 9:52*pm, JohnDeRosa wrote:
And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? *It
glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

Well, take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8

I wonder if you could actually soar that thing on a booming day in
Nevada. I wouldn't bet against it.

T8

The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)

Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?

Pete

"Evan Ludeman" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 9:52 pm, JohnDeRosa wrote:
And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? It
glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

Well, take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8

I wonder if you could actually soar that thing on a booming day in
Nevada. I wouldn't bet against it.

T8

On Mar 8, 8:36*am, "Peter von Tresckow" wrote:
The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)

Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?

Pete

No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
engines) were aero towed during the development program. The
"production" Me 163Bs had flight profiles that included significant
glides while returning to base. It's a fascinating story, written up
in a couple of books and well worth reading. It was by all accounts a
really nice handling airplane. I wonder if this was the fastest
wooden airplane ever built? It said to have exceeded 1000 km/hr. It
was a strictly subsonic aerodynamic design. IIRC, they did fly it up
to the point of shock formation and it clearly wasn't going to go
well :-).

Period film shows Me163s flying at very high speed in the pattern, ca
200 mph. This was done (as I was given to understand) more to
minimize exposure to Allied aircraft than of aerodynamic necessity.

T8

In article
,
Evan Ludeman wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:36*am, "Peter von Tresckow" wrote:
The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)

Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?

Pete

No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
engines) were aero towed during the development program.

Someone built a non-powered full-scale replica a few years ago. It was
lighter than the original and I don't know if it used the same airfoils
or not. The builder flew it as his personal sailplane. There were/are
videos on the net of it flying and even thermalling. I think it has
since gone to a museum.

XCOR Aerospace, the outfit that put rocket engines on a Long EZ, was
offering to build rocket powered full scale Me-163 replicas a while
back. I don't think they got any takers.

"Berry" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Evan Ludeman wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:36 am, "Peter von Tresckow" wrote:
The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)

Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?

Pete

No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
engines) were aero towed during the development program.

Someone built a non-powered full-scale replica a few years ago. It was
lighter than the original and I don't know if it used the same airfoils
or not. The builder flew it as his personal sailplane. There were/are
videos on the net of it flying and even thermalling. I think it has
since gone to a museum.

XCOR Aerospace, the outfit that put rocket engines on a Long EZ, was
offering to build rocket powered full scale Me-163 replicas a while
back. I don't think they got any takers.

LOL I just found a few references to the L/D of the ME-163 being around 17.
IIRC that's the same as a 2-22 :-)

Granted the 163 probably had a much higher minimum sink though.

Peter

In article ,
"Peter von Tresckow" wrote:

"Berry" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Evan Ludeman wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:36 am, "Peter von Tresckow" wrote:
The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)

Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?

Pete

No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
engines) were aero towed during the development program.

Someone built a non-powered full-scale replica a few years ago. It was
lighter than the original and I don't know if it used the same airfoils
or not. The builder flew it as his personal sailplane. There were/are
videos on the net of it flying and even thermalling. I think it has
since gone to a museum.

XCOR Aerospace, the outfit that put rocket engines on a Long EZ, was
offering to build rocket powered full scale Me-163 replicas a while
back. I don't think they got any takers.

LOL I just found a few references to the L/D of the ME-163 being around 17.
IIRC that's the same as a 2-22 :-)

Granted the 163 probably had a much higher minimum sink though.

Peter

Found the link to the flying replica:
http://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/kurz.htm

Earlier, Marc Ramsey wrote:

Someone needs to get in touch with Jet Propulsion Laboratory and
Aerojet, they have the wrong names! ;^)

From the ever-authoritative Wikipedia:

A jet engine is a reaction engine that discharges a fast
moving jet which generates thrust by jet propulsion in
accordance with Newton's laws of motion. This broad
definition of jet engines includes turbojets, turbofans,
rockets, ramjets, and pulse jets. In general, most jet
engines are internal combustion engines[1] but non-
combusting forms also exist.

In common parlance, the term jet engine loosely refers
to an internal combustion airbreathing jet engine (a
duct engine). These typically consist of an engine with
a rotary (rotating) air compressor powered by a turbine
("Brayton cycle"), with the leftover power providing
thrust via a propelling nozzle...

So, yeah, in the strict technical sense you are correct: Any reaction
motor that discharges a jet of exhaust can be called a jet. But I'm
going to claim the broad low ground of "common parlance."

Anyhow, your winch project with Bob Korves is looking good!

http://ranlog.com/winch/

Let me know if you need some occasional welding or fabrication. If
you've got one Bob K. on your project, two is going to be better,
right?

Thanks, (the other) Bob K.

On Mar 8, 8:01*am, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
In common parlance, the term jet engine loosely refers
to an internal combustion airbreathing jet engine (a
duct engine). These typically consist of an engine with
a rotary (rotating) air compressor powered by a turbine
("Brayton cycle"), with the leftover power providing
thrust via a propelling nozzle...

So, yeah, in the strict technical sense you are correct: Any reaction
motor that discharges a jet of exhaust can be called a jet. But I'm
going to claim the broad low ground of "common parlance."

As late as the mid-60s, it was still common parlance to refer to
"turbojet" engines, to distinguish them from other forms of jet
propulsion (thus cleverly revealing that I'm old enough to remember).
As a completely random aside, for those who might be interested in a
key but now nearly forgotten figure in the history of both Jet
Propulsion Labs and Aerojet, look up Jack Parsons in your favorite
search engine. He was the quintessential "rocket scientist"...


Anyhow, your winch project with Bob Korves is looking good!

http://ranlog.com/winch/

Let me know if you need some occasional welding or fabrication. If
you've got one Bob K. on your project, two is going to be better,
right?

We've hit that point where we're 90% done, and the remaining 10% is
taking as long as the rest. Thanks for the offer!

Marc