poormansairforce
Well-Known Member
Deleted: it was an experiment in humor and nobody got it.
Last edited:
Yes, but they need to be quite big, just like the wing needs to be big. I'm not saying a prop can't get you that high, but how fast you get there is another matter entirely.I wasn’t comparing Celera to Pathfinder. I was only saying that props are still capable above 60,000 feet.
Didn't Helios go beyond 120 000 ft ?Are you making that statement for all propeller driven aircraft, or just the Celera? Though unmanned, Paul Macready’s Aerovironment had the Solar Pathfinder Plus that could fly over 80,000 feet and made three hour flights that sustained over 70,000 feet, all with propellers.
No. Never ascribe to conspiracy what simple history regarding investor traps built by wide eyed true believers.Kind of like how Germany was very busy developing high speed mail planes in the 1930s...
There's trouble, my friends, right here in the Mojave DesertMusic Man v3.0.
Not only that, but the prop tips go s/sonic as well.Some military aircraft are using props at high altitude.
![]()
Tupolev Tu-95 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This YouTube video, unless I wasn't paying enough attention, is really just a well presented repeat of the factory's claims that, like another project getting lots of "rapt" attention on HBA, do not seem attainable in the present configuration.Good summary here ..
Could somebody summarise it for us cheapskates with no subscription?This YouTube video, unless I wasn't paying enough attention, is really just a well presented repeat of the factory's claims that, like another project getting lots of "rapt" attention on HBA, do not seem attainable in the present configuration.
Peter Garrison's article in FLYING magazine is better. Garrison offers a critical but well measured review of the performance claims.
![]()