# Boeing phantom

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### PTAirco

##### Well-Known Member
What - nobody?? Nothing? What engines are these? How are they driven? Is this somethign NASA is keeping Top Secret? Would be nice to know about their efforts and why they chose Ranger engines of all things.

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Start combing the research papers. NASA researchers live only to publish, like all other researchers. Until it gets published in a peer-reviewed journal, you're not likely to hear many details. Boeing will keep their details under wraps to keep the competition in this program from knowing what they're doing.

#### steveair2

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
I had a 2.3 liter in my Pinto. I drove that thing to hell and back. It always ran great.
Oh, and the thread title is misspelled. It's Boeing not Boing.

Last edited:

#### shafferpilot

##### Active Member
Rapid prototyping huh... i guess that explains all the waves in the side of the fuselage... kinda wish it had a pilot to try and save the day when some other half-assed part breaks while cruising over MY neighborhood.

#### Rhino

##### Well-Known Member
I had a 2.3 liter in my Pinto. I drove that thing to hell and back. It always ran great.
Had a Maverick with a straight six back before anybody heard of metrics. Don't remember the cubic inches. 289 seems to ring a bell for some reason. I know you could drive that car of a cliff and it would still purr like a kitten. Had it for three years and sold it to a dealer for $600 more than what we paid for it. He advertised it the next week for$300 more and the ad said, "Runs great".

Has absolutely nothing to do with airplanes but you made me think of it.

Oh, and the thread title is misspelled. It's Boeing not Boing.
Maybe he was talking about the Boing carburetor. :ban:

##### Well-Known Member
Oh, and the thread title is misspelled. It's Boeing not Boing.
We actually frequently refer to "Boink". Not only the way Italians/French pronounce it, but also the sound of the spar; passing the limit load :gig:

#### PTAirco

##### Well-Known Member
Jake needs to fix being able to edit the thread title one of these days. We've had a few amusing typos in there in the past.

#### orion

##### R.I.P.
Fixed it - I try to catch some of the title goofs but I don't get all of them

#### berridos

##### Well-Known Member
Now that the Phantom Eye is flying, what does the learned populace here think about it?
Fugly. But I guess you're not that interested in my (lack of) aesthetical judgement :gig:

Several things come to mind.
*Hydrogen in reciprocating engines. Great, but why not take an aircraft engine and make it directly adaptable for actual use. Practical use. This is like a huge detour.
*LH2. Why bother. Go for pressurized H2. No more cryogenic problems and only twice the volume.
*The Lange Antares H2 is far ahead. The H3 (fuselage first flown half a year ago) is even farther ahead. 4000 miles range. I wouldn't be surprised if the first H2 crossing would be within a year (non-stop that is). Atlantic crossing that is.
*For at least 15 years, LPG cars (direct injected) are fairly common here. Progress seems awfully slow since with direct injection I don't see why H2 as far as it concerns the engine should be that much more complex.

Last edited:

#### PaulS

##### Well-Known Member
Direct injected hydrogen fueled engines produce high temp, high pressure steam. That will corrode most piston engines in a short /strike that/ very short period of time. Using it in a turbine with ceramic blades it causes a lot fewer problems.