What percentage of flights use pressurization? Is pressurization the essential feature of the airplane for you?
10/23 Raptor Video
- Thread starter Volzalum
- Start date
Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:
My fuel tank provides a four hour range, but my bladder range is only two hours.
There are multiple solutions for that issue - the simplest being the now empty Gatoraide bottle that placed your bladder in jeopardy in the first place.
Something interesting happens when you start looking at pressurized GA aircraft. Arguably certified pressurized aircraft are actually less expensive than experimental ones (especially if comparing like for like).
Look at the Piper Malibu/Mirage, Cessna 340, Cessna P210, Cessna 421B--nice examples of these aircraft can be purchased between $200-$350K. These airplanes have real cabins, deice systems, air conditioning, weather radar, and mostly two engines. There's no way you could build an experimental with all those capabilities for that little. (Go look at completed RV-10 prices as a reference).
Perhaps you could build a pressurized experimental without these things to save cost, but I'd argue that pressurized airplanes actually need all of these systems and they need to be reliable. To get the most out of pressurization, you need to go high and you're likely to be going a fair distance. This means you're likely to encounter storms, ice, and widespread low IFR.
I'm not diving into operational costs like hangar, insurance, maintenance, and fuel, but it's not clear these numbers grossly favor experimentals either. Hangar will be similar for either, insurance more for experimentals (if available at all), fuel maybe a little better experimental (but see Piper Malibu), maintenance a win for experimental.
David
Look at the Piper Malibu/Mirage, Cessna 340, Cessna P210, Cessna 421B--nice examples of these aircraft can be purchased between $200-$350K. These airplanes have real cabins, deice systems, air conditioning, weather radar, and mostly two engines. There's no way you could build an experimental with all those capabilities for that little. (Go look at completed RV-10 prices as a reference).
Perhaps you could build a pressurized experimental without these things to save cost, but I'd argue that pressurized airplanes actually need all of these systems and they need to be reliable. To get the most out of pressurization, you need to go high and you're likely to be going a fair distance. This means you're likely to encounter storms, ice, and widespread low IFR.
I'm not diving into operational costs like hangar, insurance, maintenance, and fuel, but it's not clear these numbers grossly favor experimentals either. Hangar will be similar for either, insurance more for experimentals (if available at all), fuel maybe a little better experimental (but see Piper Malibu), maintenance a win for experimental.
David
Last edited:
speedracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 56
I flew my 290 powered Long EZ from Hood River, Oregon to OSH (1,610 statute miles) starting with 52 gallons of gas nonstop in 7.5 hours (with a tailwind). I landed with seven gallons of fuel. My friend Dave Lind built a back seat aux. tank for his Long EZ and flew to Hawaii..... and back to CA. Also, he landed in all 50 states.
flywheel1935
Well-Known Member
"It's quicker by tube" (Old London Underground Railway Strapline)
flywheel1935
Well-Known Member
And we're surprised by that ????
shuffman37
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2020
- Messages
- 10
I love crossing Lake Michigan at 12,000 feet and realizing my bladder is at capacity.
malte
Well-Known Member
Glider pilots use bags filled with Tampons for in flight bladder relief. Works great.
flywheel1935
Well-Known Member
TENA for Men Pads 
worked for me !!!!
worked for me !!!!So that's what they mean when they talk about water ballast.
Thanks, I've often wondered.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 95
I am looking inside PM's water to air intercooler and the core looks simply like an air to air core? This would mean the ratio of water to air contact is 50/50 which is not exactly ideal. It means that 50% of the air passage is blocked by the water passages so the back pressure across the core is higher. These cores are designed to have air on both sides and seem a compromise for other duty. I expect that since PM's unit is designed for pressurized turbo air the compromise was made due to the expected air density from the turbo. However in this application there is no increase.
The proper way to do it is with a water to air core such as below. You can see the ratios are different. More air, less water.
The proper way to do it is with a water to air core such as below. You can see the ratios are different. More air, less water.
Last edited:
With the space available in the nose there was absolutly no need to tweak current wisdom and choose the wiered option he used, omitting a nice plenum and using a propper inlet protruding tube and outlet ramp. Maybe he has become a slave of aestetics.
Could be that his final goal is succeeding in marketing and make a fashionable bird incapable of flying.
Could be that his final goal is succeeding in marketing and make a fashionable bird incapable of flying.
rv6ejguy
Well-Known Member
Plus a ten inch deep HX would never be selected (by any knowledgable person) for a radiator to aid cooling at 120 knots. It will have massive pressure drop and therefore low airflow plus no useful thermal gradient after about the first 4 inches of core depth.
flyboy2160
Well-Known Member
2nd flight track log:
flightaware.com
Flight Track Log ✈ N352TD 02-Dec-2020 (KVLD-KVLD) - FlightAware
Best Flight Tracker: Live Tracking Maps, Flight Status, and Airport Delays for airline flights, private/GA flights, and airports.
Looks like he made it all the way around the airport.2nd flight track log:
Flight Track Log ✈ N352TD 02-Dec-2020 (KVLD-KVLD) - FlightAware
Best Flight Tracker: Live Tracking Maps, Flight Status, and Airport Delays for airline flights, private/GA flights, and airports.
I’m not so sure about that. The track image makes it look like he landed in the opposite direction of his takeoff. Barring a major wind shift, that might suggest a forced early landing or some other problem.
Last edited:
