Ducted fan aircraft

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

RonL

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
502
Location
Texas
I did think myself out of the idea of using a Tesla Turbine in airplanes, for the same reason carburetor icing is such a concern, the well-performing turbine would freeze-up almost instantly from moisture in the atmosphere.
 

RonL

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
502
Location
Texas
Where is the power for this coming from in either example?
A hydroelectric powerplant stops if the lake goes dry, an atmospheric driven unit would stop when the air around it is used up. Seriously though, I think one could think of it, like putting a vacuum hole in the sky and separating it from the atmosphere with a variable displacement expansion valve, but now I'm departing from the thread topic.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,303
Location
Everywhere USA
I meant for steam turbines. The steam condenser causes a vacuum as the high volume of steam is converted into low volume of water.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,303
Location
Everywhere USA
Was just reading about the USAF buying some turboprops to test for light attack roles and realized that an upgraded fantrainer would actually have significant advantages over the turboprops.

It has vastly better outside vision, and it also has a nose that isn’t taken up by a prop. Allowing a radar.

The cockpit is also not on the centerline, which means a small bomb bay is possible.
 

Lendo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
486
Location
Brisbane
Doggzilla, Always loved that Fanliner/ trainer, a Light Sport version with a lightened Mazda Rotary, it would be great.
George
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,303
Location
Everywhere USA
It would definitely help it’s cruise performance. The original turbine is extremely inefficient and loses power quickly with altitude.

The original turbine is so inefficient that even the PT-6 is 30-40% more efficient and more powerful at cruising altitude.

Almost anything is better than what it has.
 

Lendo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
486
Location
Brisbane
Doggzilla, The prototype was built with a NSU Rotary, sadly the Rotary engine wasn't so well developed in those early days. I think the Russians have had more success with Rotaries.
George
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,851
Location
US
Was just reading about the USAF buying some turboprops to test for light attack roles and realized that an upgraded fantrainer would actually have significant advantages over the turboprops.
Unless there have been some very recent changes, the USAF has cancelled an earlier program to acquire turboprop light attack aircraft. The two contenders were the Embraer Super Tucano and the AT-6 from Textron. There had been talk of buying over 350 of the aircraft. All that has pretty much fallen apart, but USSOCOM (not the USAF) may be looking to buy up to 75 light attack/overwatch aircraft in a program of its own. There are several contenders, including this small pusher to be built in Florida. IMO, for a program this small, it would not be smart for USSOCOM to select a clean-sheet aircraft. The per-unit cost will be very high, and the long-term programmatic risk (for sustainment) will be high. They'd get much more bang for the buck with an existing aircraft (a modified commercial aircraft, or an existing military light attack aircraft (e.g. Super Tucano, AT-6, etc). They have a stated requirement to operate from austere environments (e.g. dirt, or runways so bad that they're about like dirt). I'd be very surprised if they pick any type of pusher, with or without a shroud. It would be ridiculous.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,113
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
It seems like I have been reading about efforts to produce a light attack / anti-insurgency aircraft for the past 60 years. Not many have actually been built.


BJC
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,303
Location
Everywhere USA
I’m betting it mostly is because of the effectiveness of gunships lately. I’ve heard nothing but raving reviews from anyone who has been involved with them.

They would probably have a smaller gunship if anything met the criteria. But the twin market is really limited right now. And many of the ones with good takeoff performance are shockingly short range.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,851
Location
US
It seems like I have been reading about efforts to produce a light attack / anti-insurgency aircraft for the past 60 years. Not many have actually been built.


BJC
In the USAF, the only ones to reach IOC were the OV-10 and the A-37. In this country, the outlook for a large manned fixed wing COIN/light attack aircraft program is pretty dim. With GPS and other ubiquitous precise terminal guidance options available, the need for Mk 1 eyeball target acquisition from the skies is no more--the guys on the ground can do their own designation, or it can be done by UAV. The weapons themselves (missiles, small diameter bomb (SDB) and longer-range derivatives) can be dropped by other aircraft that can remain out of range of insurgents, can carry larger ordnance loads than any light attack aircraft, and remain on station much longer to service targets in a more responsive fashion. The carrying aircraft could be B-52s, and soon maybe airlift aircraft (see the CLEAVER program). There's really not much need to"go down there" anymore. (Of course, we've said that before).

The services are strapped for personnel costs. The USAF can't afford squadrons of "one trick pony" aircraft to plink at insurgents in small numbers for a brief time. The guys on the ground want faster response in all weather, and sometimes a LOT of ordnance on short notice. In a low-threat air environment, an "arsenal plane" can do COIN more effectively and at lower cost than small turboprops. And next year, they can be used to fight a major war if required.

Light attack aircraft might make a lot of sense for other nations with different priorities.
 
Last edited:

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,851
Location
US
Yes, I do. I thought it was a great idea back in the day, it would have been a hoot to fly.

I was surprised to see that the A-37 Dragonfly had about the same payload and the same combat radius (with full stores) as the PA-48. The Dragonfly was a surprisingly good airplane cobbled together in a very short time in a well-run development program. Effective, cheap to maintain, a lot of capability in a little package--heck it even had a probe for inflight refueling.
 
Last edited:

Urquiola

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
90
Location
Madrid, Spain
=source ?
It's an University 'Homework' by Sepideh Jafarzadeh, mentor Timothy Takahashi, Fulton Schools of Engineering. Arizona State University, 'Design of a Rocket Engine Thrust Augmentation Ejector Nozzle'
(You may like the 1988 Movie: 'D.O.A.', Anabel Jankel, Rocky Morton)
Blessings + Design of a Rocket Engine Thrust Augmentator Ejector Nozzle -Background.jpg
 

Urquiola

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
90
Location
Madrid, Spain
Was just reading about the USAF buying some turboprops to test for light attack roles and realized that an upgraded fantrainer would actually have significant advantages over the turboprops.

It has vastly better outside vision, and it also has a nose that isn’t taken up by a prop. Allowing a radar.

The cockpit is also not on the centerline, which means a small bomb bay is possible.
About 'Fantrainer' the John Deere Wankel RCE research deserved a better fate. Images in SAE paper 890324.
About aviation engines, an Spanish specialist in Engine Maintenance and repair, Ricard Miguel Vidal, prepared an Encylopedia 'El motor de aviación de la A a la Z', available at Aeroteca, Barcelona, of open consultation for AEHS members www.enginehistory.org it's $15, or so, a year, membership fees.
Blessings +John Deere SCRAE -Basic Performance SAE 890324.jpgJohn Deere 2034R Strat Charg 660 cc chamber Housing SAE 890324.jpg
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,303
Location
Everywhere USA
In the USAF, the only ones to reach IOC were the OV-10 and the A-37. In this country, the outlook for a large manned fixed wing COIN/light attack aircraft program is pretty dim. With GPS and other ubiquitous precise terminal guidance options available, the need for Mk 1 eyeball target acquisition from the skies is no more--the guys on the ground can do their own designation, or it can be done by UAV. The weapons themselves (missiles, small diameter bomb (SDB) and longer-range derivatives) can be dropped by other aircraft that can remain out of range of insurgents, can carry larger ordnance loads than any light attack aircraft, and remain on station much longer to service targets in a more responsive fashion. The carrying aircraft could be B-52s, and soon maybe airlift aircraft (see the CLEAVER program). There's really not much need to"go down there" anymore. (Of course, we've said that before).

The services are strapped for personnel costs. The USAF can't afford squadrons of "one trick pony" aircraft to plink at insurgents in small numbers for a brief time. The guys on the ground want faster response in all weather, and sometimes a LOT of ordnance on short notice. In a low-threat air environment, an "arsenal plane" can do COIN more effectively and at lower cost than small turboprops. And next year, they can be used to fight a major war if required.

Light attack aircraft might make a lot of sense for other nations with different priorities.
This exactly.

The major benefit of having these aircraft should be similar to Green Berets. To allow training of friendly forces.

Drones are somewhat vulnerable to jamming, which the US can counter easily. But this is not to case for most of our third world Allies.

A cheap turboprop aircraft provides similar performance to a drone, but it cannot be jammed. So for poor nations with limited tech resources, it performs very well and with limited technical requirements.

So the program should be with our Allies in mind, not ourselves
 
2
Top