Crazy idea of the week - Scale Magister

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

addaon

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
1,696
Location
San Jose, CA
AMT Microturbines just came out with their new toy -- the Nike. At 176 lbs thrust, it's just begging to be used in a homebuilt of some kind. Sure, fuel consumption is beyond bad and well into ridiculous territory, but an hour of play time might be acceptable for a pure toy.

A single Nike would be a good fit for something like the Subsonex, at around 700 lbs MTOW. But what if you're willing to go over the top and do a twin?

A 60% Fouga CM.170 Magister could be designed to a 1320 lb MTOW for a single pilot, just a tad bit less than proportional weight. 67 ft^2 of wing area gives half the wing loading, for a stall speed (assuming nearly identical CL_max to full-size) of 61 kts. 24' span seems sane, and cockpit width would be on the order of 24" (I don't have a scaled Magister cockpit for getting a more accurate number) -- a tight fit, as expected.

Cruise speed unknown at this point, but (as with ceiling) probably limited by running out of fuel. Glide ratio good enough to (a) motivate the spoilers and (b) get back home on a dry tank.

Sure, it's not sane. But wouldn't it be fun?
 

StarJar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
1,723
Location
El Centro, California, USA
I wonder what speed it produces the best thrust at?

Maybe someone should sit down and create an airframe AROUND this engine (figuratively), and see what could happen. Small frontal area, lots of fuel in wings, (short)retractable gear....who knows they might could sell 5 or 6.
 

addaon

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
1,696
Location
San Jose, CA
Well, that's basically what the Subsonex is. They're building around the TJ100, which is by all accounts a better (and heavier) engine, but they're close enough if fuel consumption and thrust class as to be interchangeable at design level. The issue is that they're both so **** thirsty that for a sane single-seater you're looking at 300 lbs empty or less... and we know how to build 300 lb aircraft, there's just not a huge range for creativity. And since a jet like this will never be practical, in my mind creativity is where it's at. Going to a twin (of either engine) and you're looking at a much larger aircraft, with empty weights of 800 lbs being sane for a one-seat dual Nike at around 1400 lbs MTOW. (At the twin level, the newer higher-thrust TJ100 is significantly different, probably looking around 1200 lbs empty and 1900 lbs MTOW).
 

StarJar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
1,723
Location
El Centro, California, USA
If you put the fuel AND the engines in, AND, on the wing, you could have a pretty light airframe . I think about 300 lbs of fuel for each engine. That would give you 3 hours at 15 gph. 15 is a wild guess, does anybody know the fuel flow?
 

addaon

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
1,696
Location
San Jose, CA
At full throttle, the Nike runs around 35 gph, and the TJ100 runs around 40/44 gph (220/250 lb thrust).
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,779
Location
CT, USA
Fuel consumption is only around ten times that of a piston engine producing similar thrust...:)

Now if only they'd come out with a high bypass turbofan in that size class... or a turboprop...

-Dana

Congress shall make no law....What part of NO didn't you understand?
 

topspeed100

Banned
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
4,063
Location
Oulu/Finland
Fuel consumption is only around ten times that of a piston engine producing similar thrust...:)

Now if only they'd come out with a high bypass turbofan in that size class... or a turboprop...
I bet a 110 lbs turbofan with afterburner would burn the same and deliver more ?...Fouga Magister Super Sport doing mach 1.8 ?
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,763
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Now if only they'd come out with a high bypass turbofan in that size class... or a turboprop...
There is a company (I think in the US) that has a 100-ish HP turboprop.

But the best news about the new AMT is that it has a normal start. No more need for propane or CO2. Thus you can also restart it in flight.
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
It ain't real cheap! I wonder how durable it is (TBO)?

This cover of one of Darrol Stinton's books is a candidate - without the impractical forward swept wings, and maybe the canard as well - would be a good candidate for these engines:

stintonjet.jpg
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,763
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Bottom line is that even at these high temps this engine is going to make well under 150 lb of thrust max...if you want to strap one of these between your legs you will want to run at much lower temps and you can count on 120 lb of thrust from this engine...
LOL. So based on some assumptions that engine can't possibly perform what several independent parties (some "NASA" and some other boy scouts) have tested and confirmed over the years...
Btw these two airplanes are still the only airplanes to date that have been able to truly supercruise...cruising over M2 with no reheat...(afterburner)...
LOL.
Lightning? Eurofighter? Gripen? Rafale? The newest Sukhoi? The Super Hornet if I'm not mistaken? All can supercruise...
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,763
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
tested and confirmed...?...please point me to this data...
Hold on. You claim that this engine can't deliver that performance.

It's up to you to prove that. As said, you're basing it on assumptions which are doubtfull at best or more likely, uninformed.
Others have linked to those tests in earlier posts, I have clearly pointed to other tests (NASA) and I've witnessed the Titan myself achieving over rated trust, which you proclaim is impossible. Those engines are around for over 2 decades and have flown in hundreds of models and at least a dozen of manned aircraft.
As for "supercruising" everyone has their own goofy definition...If you consider being able to go M1.1 for five or six minutes as supercruising then there are many planes that can do that...which is completely meaningless...
Please don't make up your own definitions again. Supercruise is supersonic flight without afterburning. Period. Refer to a dictionary when in doubt...
 
Last edited:
Top