Boeing phantom

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,509
Location
Corona CA
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
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,011
Location
Orange County, California
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
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Messages
981
Location
Dallas Texas
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
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
25
Location
Cincinnati, OH / USA
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
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
771
Location
SW Ohio
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:
 

PTAirco

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
3,509
Location
Corona CA
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.
 

autoreply

Moderator
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,735
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
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
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
297
Location
Seattle, Wa., USA
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.
 
Group Builder
Top