Jet sailplane photos

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

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

"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

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

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" 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

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

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,
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

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