experiamental fighter jet style aircraft

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by T-51ls1, Dec 7, 2012.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Dec 17, 2012 #161

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Excellent point, the more blades there are the more noise the prop/fan produces. By using the appropriately shaped scimitar blades the noise level goes drastically down yet it is still considerable when compared to those hubs with a smaller number of blades. A typical prop has two, three or four blades, at most 5 or 6. A typical fan has from 9 to several times more blades, the more blades the more noise. So if the fan blades are straight the noise really becomes a problem at these rotational speeds. Yet when the shape of the blades are scimitar, curved feather or other shapes the noise level can be reduced quite a lot.

    The tip of the blade travels at a higher speed than the middle or the root. By designing the tip accordingly to the speed and the angles of attack most appropriate for that use the noise level and efficiency can be adjusted precisely. It makes sense, a typical efficient airfoil for low speeds can be thick and swept forward for good efficiency, so is the root of the scimitar blade. A typical airfoil for medium subsonic speeds is straight and slightly laminar, so is the middle of the scimitar blades. A typical high subsonic speed airfoil is thin and swept back, so is the tip of the scimitar blade. So if designed properly the blades can contribute to both better efficiency and less noise production.

    So you are right, it is not just noise reduction, it is also efficiency improvement that is a bit better. I've seen a blade manufacturer at a fair advertise their shape on a smaller prop model, a good straight prop blade was producing around 2kg of thrust per HP while a scimitar shaped one was making more than 2.5kg. Which is quite a significant difference and it would surely affect range and fuel consumption. Using such an unducted fan for propulsion of a small fighter style experimental homebuilt 'jet' aircraft could assure better range and fuel economy at the sacrifice of speed. If anyone has more ideas or thoughts on this subject it would be nice to read them here...
     
  2. Dec 17, 2012 #162

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    DMV-Bootsdiesel (English Index)

    65 kg running weight without the marine gears etc.
     
    Detego likes this.
  3. Dec 17, 2012 #163

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    These are sportbike engines and their torque is adjusted to the need, they do not have to haul 10 ton trucks so all excess torque would be unnecessary.

    Now, if you look at most modern bikes from the '90s till today you can notice that the engine is set HIGHER than in the old engines, which improved handling of the bikes at track. A lower center of gravity is not needed, it is even counter productive. Even jet fighters use the same principle, in order for the fighter to be agile it has to be slightly unstable, meaning better menouvering. The same goes for bikes, the best place to put the engine is at the right place where gyroscopic moments and torque occur, not in the lowest center of gravity. And that is one of the reasons boxer motors are obsolete for racing, they cannot macth the competition. Not only that, but even some reknown boxer engine bikes had quite a lot mechanical problems. Take for instance the large BMW GS series, a boxer engine bike that has been recalled so many times since the beginning of it's existence, it had so many various mechanical problems. It's amazing people still fall for marketing tricks of such large companies after so many reported clutch problems, fuel pump problems, drive and driveshaft problems, gearbox problems. So it is a lie placed by the manufacturer that the engine is a boxer engine because it needs a lower center of gravity. The fact is the engine is a boxer because it needs constant mechanical interventions. Sad but true. In motorbike use the BMW and the Rotax engines are most avoided by experts, they have constant problems. The smaller BMW GS bike has a Rotax engine inside. Few of the engines pass 50k km, I've seen some of them break down or even explode at less than 1000km. Even the best BMW S1000RR is known to explode a piston due to some serious design flaws inside the engine. Once it happens, BMW will most probably send your bike to their facility not allowing you to see, shoot or film what happened inside your engine. It's called Marketing, they will give you a new bike after some time and you'll be quiet. Yes, the bike is performing really good at the track. Yes, it is designed well. And yes, it is a joy to ride. If it works and passes 5000km, of course. BMW has invested millions of money so people would see films and other advertisement about their (boxer) engines. Yet the fact is, these engines are neither as reliable as they claim, nor is the boxer engine made because it has 'a lower center of gravity'. Most of these companies like the Beemer will claim that 'the engines was not serviced well' or some other BS marketing story and then keep the customer quiet with some compensation, commonly a new part or new bike. It's not just these companies that have the same policy, even Yamaha had so many issues in the last few years with brand new bikes. Fuel pumps, camshaft sensors, fuel injection problems, you name it. And I'm not talking only about RR bikes, quite a few suffer from similar problems in the last decade. It becomes a lottery to buy a new bike, you never know what you're gonna get. So if I would have to convert a bike engine for use in a homebuilt it would definitely not be a boxer. Just my 2 cents, everyone has the right to chose their powerplant according to their wishes or preferance.

    The GSXR1100 and the Busa on the other hand were/are reliable even after overpowering them, which to me as someone who needs BOTH an efficent AND reliable engine is a smarter choice. If you find a more reliable and powerful engine at up to 70kg weight please be so kind to point out in that direction, I'd be very thankful.
     
  4. Dec 17, 2012 #164

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Good to know that they (BMW) are just a bunch of idiots earning on a hyped overmarketed product, as are mates of me that race them, or myself for that matter. I guess they would do well to taste a bit of your infinite wisdom and real-world experience. Why don't you apply as new chief engineer for them, or start teaching us how to really race a motorcycle?
     
    karoliina.t.salminen likes this.
  5. Dec 17, 2012 #165

    Detego

    Detego

    Detego

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    North America

    "The boxer engine was first patented by German engineer Karl Benz."
    http://www.life123.com/cars-vehicles/repair-troubleshooting/car-engines/boxer-engine.shtml


    LowProfile_static_960.jpg
    Engine Comparison | Subaru Boxer Engine

    SRT USA Wins 2012 Rally America National Championship at NEFR

    web_LG3_9342.jpg

    Subaru Rally Team USA Wins X Games Rally Medal

    All-Wheel Drive; 170-hp SUBARU BOXER engine.
     
  6. Dec 17, 2012 #166

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Is there a point calling BMW, your mates or yourself idiots? Frankly, there's no need to teach them infinite wisdom, they taught it themselves: the last motorbike engine that BMW produced (S1000RR) for racing is NOT A BOXER but an in line four.

    Are you sure you want to say that these Subarus lean into curves as motorcycles do? Don't you think that there are quite a few differences between motorcycle CGs and car CGs..?

    Interesting is the fact that before Karl Benz's engine there were electric cars. A lower CG could be obtained by simply installing the batteries bellow the axles, if that would be necessary. In fact, the first car to breach the 100km/h limit was an electric car, La jamais contente from Belgium. It achieved a record at 105km/h in 1899 which no other gasoline engine could at the time. Even today, more than a hundred years later, electric cars can outperform ICE cars easily. Yet we don't see many of them on the tracks, right? And speaking of endurance and longevity internal combustion engines are nowhere near electric motor vehicles. So please correct me if I did not understand your point well, did you want to say that the boxer engine is better than all other electric motors since there aren't any electric winning the Rally America National Championship. Or that Subaru's boxer engine is better than all other internal combustion engines because it has a lower CG?

    The biggest problem would then be this: if the lower CG in a boxer engine is THAT important then all Rotaxes, Lycomings, Continentals and other boxer engines would suffer a lot because they are nowhere near the CG of an aircraft. And BMW would not produce a high tech motorcycle engine that is in a four line but would stick to the good ole boxer concept. Hell, they would even keep producing the boxers in the seventies and would not go to in line fours, sixes and V8 engines that they use today. Right?

    Guys, I don't get you. Why are you always trying to fight someones words on the forum and drift off topic, isn't it becoming tiresome? Quite frankly, would it not be nicer to discuss the topic and bring ideas together about homebuilt experimental jet style aircraft? Because that subject is way more interesting than whose is bigger, the Beemer's or the Subaru's. Engine, of course, not the IQ.

    So I quit. You're right, the boxer engine rules, yeeey, meeee liiike it long tiiiime. Could we cut the crap now and get back to the topic from the subject of the thread?
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2012
  7. Dec 17, 2012 #167

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Because not everyone has the knowledge or experience to see some statements for the blathering BS they are. Having a "counter opinion" at least gives them the opportunity to judge both points of view and draw their own conclusions.


    But indeed, back OT now.
     
  8. Dec 17, 2012 #168

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Very true. Yet there's a flip side to that coin. You see, I have a V8 BMW in my driveway for more than 9 years now with 350k km and I know exactly all the good sides and the bad sides of it, it was me who had to pay for all the repairs and maintenance during all these years. Not someone else's opinions, the company or god knows who, it is my money which kept the car running. And kept the company running. An ocean is made of tiny little drops of water, my money also contributed as a drop of water. So I will not bull**** that it is the best car in the world just because I drive it, or just because the company is fancy or prestigious. Even though some admire such a car with awe. The car is good, period. Not the best, not the worst. Yet I will certainly not close my eyes on all the repairs/problems I went through with it all these years. And I would never put it in an aircraft for flying. While a GSXR1100 engine modified for aircraft use, that I would. I could rely on that engine a lot more for safe flying. You can call it an opinion or experience, I call it 'my money'. And when I sum it all up through all these years and all the models I had, it comes to a nice bucket of water. A bit more than expected from many high end product companies in all those years I guess. So if someone wants to learn from other peoples' experience (my experience) to save a bit of money, then good for them.

    Back OT, what do you think about homebuilt experimental fighter jet like aircraft? Any preference, ideas, which airplane would be closest to your taste of flying and why? Any opinions, thoughts or knowledge on the BD-10 or the ViperJet?
     
  9. Dec 17, 2012 #169

    Detego

    Detego

    Detego

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    North America



    1.) YES, a car like a Motorcycles leans into curves and the less weight up top the better it handles in said curve.

    2.) Were not discussing electric motors.

    3.) YES, in a racing application keeping the weight lower in the frame/chassis, increases stability and speed in the turns.

    4.) We have in aircraft design what we call the 'Thrust-Line of the Engine'. We must also blend the Engine Cowl with the Rest of the Fuselage.

    5.) I've given you my opinion, if you don't like it I have others.



    The question never asked is never answered: Why is it that the Japanese do not manufacture Boxer Engines for their Motorcycles?

    o Royalties paid to Benz.

    o The ability to lean the Bike Further into Turns; forgoing the improved C/G provided by the Boxer Engine (ground clearance).

    o Their engine looks better; gives it that go fast look. fly.gif







    "Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines." - Enzo Ferrari
     
  10. Dec 17, 2012 #170

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    1. Motorcycle lean into curves because they can. Cars cannot, with acting centrifugal and centripetal forces they need that lower CG mass positioning.
    2. Completely true, we were discussing experimental fighter jet style aircraft. Until you and some others started adding Subarus and boxers into the equation.
    3. Take at look at racing beyond the mentioned rally and you may find many other concepts of engines besides boxer ones. Winning.
    4. Of course. Yet that will not change the fact that an engine in the aircraft does not have to be in the CG range.
    5. Your opinions are great yet I miss the point of relevance to the topic.

    Royalties to a patent seize to exist after 20 years because the concept becomes common good. Karl Benz will definitely not sue you if you produce a boxer engine, which existed even before his invention as a steam engine.
    The ground clearance was achieved by Moto Guzzi years ago by positioning the opposed pistons in a V so the clearance allowed leaning into curves. Yet then people discovered that there is a thing called physics which introduced them to the gyroscopic moment and homokinetic rotation forces.

    Guys, I give up. Have your EXPERIMENTAL FIGHTER JET STYLE AIRCRAFT thread and feel free to blast it with off topic opinions. I think there are better ways to use precious time when interested in experimental progress. Have fun and good day.
     
  11. Dec 17, 2012 #171

    djschwartz

    djschwartz

    djschwartz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    The BD10 was a very bad design. Came apart in flight and killed the test pilot. Jim Bede has a long reputation of over-hyping and under developing his designs. Some of his designs, like the BD4, are OK but never lived up to the claims he made. In the end I think he began to believe his own hype about what a great designer he was and that led to the 10 and its flaws. The airplane was simply under designed with far too many short-cuts taken to try to get it done with the effort and money he had available. Designing a fighter-like jet is a very complex and challenging task. It takes a team of experienced engineers and a huge budget. Without that not only are the chances of success low, but the chances of killing some one are high.

    The Viper also did not live up to its initial expectations. Major design changes were required between the first and second prototypes. It's not as fast, costs far more, and burns more fuel then was claimed by the designers initially. That's been true of all of the attempts at a homebuilt or personal jet and is the reason you don't see very many of them flying around. As has been said, you can buy a jet trainer like the L-29 or L-39 for far less money than it would cost to design and build something that even approached their performance.
     
    Topaz likes this.
  12. Dec 18, 2012 #172

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,575
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Heck of a design challenge, from what little I've read on the subject. Blade shape tailored, multiple and non-linear spanwise sweep angles tailored to the local Mach value at design speed and RPM, highly tailored twist distributions along the span, very thin blades (structural issue), and so on. And then most of them are variable pitch, too. Not impossible, and I understand that if you don't care about noise, the problem becomes much easier, relatively speaking. Efficient and quiet still baffles the aerospace primes. Not something I think a homebuilder could resolve.

    Jan would probably know more on the subject. Looks like one of those "big team, lots of calculation, modeling, and then crossing your fingers during the tests" sort of things.
     
  13. Dec 18, 2012 #173

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,575
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    I think at one time or another, every single one of us has dreamed of such an aircraft. But the realities of such a project are completely daunting, when you look at them. This is orders of magnitude harder than something like a Glassair or RV-x aircraft. And orders of magnitude more expensive. Our own late Orion (who certainly had the industry experience to speak with knowledge and authority on the subject) estimated that developing and building such an aircraft would require funding well into the seven-figure range, and I don't doubt him on that. ViperJet and Javelin (ATG) have both spent, individually, several million dollars on their respective projects. ATG, declared bankruptcy in 2008 after failing to obtain $200 million in financing to fund further development.

    Are you really prepared to invest that kind of funding in a project like this?

    As for the BD-10, my understanding is that one of the crashes occurred when the flap drive partially failed on approach, driving one flap down and not the other. The ailerons were not powerful enough to overcome the resulting roll moment. I don't know about the other crash(es?), but the aircraft had an abysmal record in the flight test program. AFAIK, none are still flying. The whole project (another multi-million-dollar effort) seemed a bit slap-dash and underdeveloped. Jim Bede is a clever aircraft designer (but a lousy businessman and a worse marketing man), but in this case, it seems he was probably in over his head.
     
    jlknolla likes this.
  14. Dec 18, 2012 #174

    jlknolla

    jlknolla

    jlknolla

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    San Diego CA, USA
    If there were performance gains to be had, IF they could be had economically AND reliably, AND if there were not concerns about public acceptance, UDF's would already be the norm. It is a massive design challenge to get right, and several huge and well funded/deep pocket OEM's have looked at it but the technology in practice does not meet the need in the right ratio of performance/acceptance/cost/complexity.

    At 402 KTAS, the Piaggio Avanti is the fastest production propellor driven airplane on the planet, faster in fact than many light jets. It is also hands down the most efficient/'green' business aircraft ever conceived, and from a propulsion standpoint it is a basic garden-variety PT-6/Hartzell setup, albeit in a pusher orientation. As a turboprop, it is also significantly more efficient than any jet, although best economy is achieved at a more pedestrian 320 or so KTAS.

    For my money, a basic turboprop is still the most efficient propulsion setup for most common weights, and to Karoliina's question, that suggests a slightly exotic prop (maybe 4-7 blades depending on solidity needed to absorb power and allowable prop dimensions) would be a better choice than something like a UDF that adds a whole new design/integration/aerodynamic effort on top of say an electric motor and the requisite storage and control systems.
     
    DangerZone and Topaz like this.
  15. Dec 18, 2012 #175

    jlknolla

    jlknolla

    jlknolla

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    San Diego CA, USA
    I actually have met and done business with Bede on a couple projects which occurred after the loss of the Falcon CEO and testbed, and I am friends with an engineer who supported the BD-10 program in St Louis - have had many intersting conversations about that particular accident.

    Without going into details here, there is a lot of misinformation about the program, part of which Topaz corrected with respect to the flap failure - the loss of the Falcon aircraft is an interesting story and I will try and pull together what I can and post it if I can figure out how to write it up without violating any info shared in confidence.

    I'll also second Topaz's observation of Jim, very clever designer/engineer, but not a particularly good businessman. And yes, I was eventually paid for all the work I did (I consider myself quite lucky).
     
    SVSUSteve and Topaz like this.
  16. Dec 20, 2012 #176

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    DangerZone

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    373
    Location:
    Zagreb HR
    Yeah, you're right, the structure of the BD-10 was not adequate to the needs. And it did kill the test pilot. But didn't many other good concepts with bad construction do that also in the past...? The BD was a brilliant idea and concept yet the construction and engineering was problematic and had quite a few structural design flaws, lethal ones.

    When it comes to experimental aircraft we have to be aware of the fact that many good concepts started that way. Take a look at the Ambrosini SS4 which was built by Sergio Stefanuti in the '30s of last century. A great concept, a brilliant idea at the time, yet the test pilot was also killed during initial testing. Based on this airplane the Japanese built the Kyushu Shinden, the Americans built the Curtiss Wright Ascender adn Burt Rutan built the VariViggen/EZ. So it could be just a question of time until someone redesigns the concept and builds a better prototype. In fact, isn't the ViperJet just an upragde of the BD-10 idea with many of the flaws resolved and built the proper way?

    My point is, if the construction or implementation of an idea is bad that does not have to mean the concept is bad, as a concept per se. In time, someone might improve all the bad design flaws, or even completely redesign the concept. The BD-10 had just too many issues, but the idea of a private jet fighter weighting bellow one ton and flying at more than 1Mach seems like a feasible one with the technology that we have today.

    I agree, I bet many of us had the same dream at some point in our life. And I am neither prepared nor willing to invest millions in such a project, because I haven't got them. And even if I had them there is a question whether it would be worth it because money invested would never be returned. So from that perspective I guess only some ministries of defense or drug lords would profit from such a concept.

    From what I read one of the BD-10s had a tail flutter problem which broke in flight and another had this issue that you mentioned. Among other things, of course, it seems there was a mixture of design solutions to get a compromise. Millions wasted on a product that did not live to it's expectations. At the same time there were people who wanted to achieve the same with less money, take for example the Smitty Hairplane and the JetHawk II. Both were failures not due to lack of money but to basic understanding of the ducted fan and shrouded principles.

    iso1.jpg

    jh2_2.jpg

    The Fantrainer had some results in the seventies and later on as a good product yet it is more of a shrouded prop than a ducted fan. The conclusion is that many have the same concept yet so far not many (if any) have achieved to have a very fast airplane that is not too thirsty fuel-wise. In other words, the concept and idea are good yet the construction and production are the problem.

    Such a story would be very interesting, along with the details why they chose such wing and tail airfoil profiles. It seems they envisaged the airplane would be cruising at transonic speed or above and sacrificed good properties at lower speeds with such an approach. Yet the airplanes was flying at lower than transonic speeds, it makes no sense. I've seen the BD-10 presentation video and your insight would demistify a lot of things. Cause from a bystander's point of view, there definitely seems to be too many mistakes for such a high cost project.
     
  17. Dec 23, 2012 #177

    karoliina.t.salminen

    karoliina.t.salminen

    karoliina.t.salminen

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Finland
    I was just reading about SubSonex. Seen articles about it before many times, but now checked out some videos too. It seems the cost of PBS TJ100 is almost reasonable. Poor efficiency and poor thrust from one engine, but composite a single seater of size of SubSonex could be an interesting concept, just for fun. not to travel somewhere with the machine, but just for local fun flights. Would fit in similar category as my KTM 250 EXC-F which is for only riding enduro trails or mx track for fun or for racing or both, and not for traveling anywhere further (on road) than to get to this said trail or motocross track because of the very frequent maintenance and overhaul periods. But I saw the light of justification for investing in this kind of bike despite it is highly unpractical for anything else. Similarly a little jet, just for flying [jet aerobatics] for fun at lowish altitude something like 30 minutes at a time, would not be so bad idea when all traveling is taken out of the equation. That 30-60 minutes will cost the same as getting to 1000 km away with a Diamond due to the very poor efficiency of the turbojet engine. but a lot of people fly for not getting somewhere but just for fun locally, and shorter flight time if it was rewarding enough could be worth it. And it is better to burn a lots of Jet-A with the price one could shoot to sky in fireworks in the new year eve in one blow - imo, better price-what you get ratio to burn it (the money) as Jet-A in a jet engine. The jet should be very small and lightweight to offer awesome power to weight ratio. I am suspecting though that two of these jet engines could be needed of have more jet-like performance (that would be usually expected from a jet) allthough this would double the fuel cost and halve the endurance, as this 44 gallons per hour would be a quite steep figure, especially for the "get nowhere" little single seater.
     
  18. Dec 24, 2012 #178

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,537
    Likes Received:
    3,383
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    Jets are hard enough to justify in the best case, but to take all practicality out of it and fly it as a simple "fun" machine for local flights would really be a limited market, I would think. Using something like the sub Sonex for example, many airplanes have a higher T/W ratio and would fly circles around it. The only real appeal then, is the jet engine. Seems like that would only be fun until someone in a Harmon Rocket blows past you on half the fuel burn.
     
    SVSUSteve and highspeed like this.
  19. Dec 24, 2012 #179

    highspeed

    highspeed

    highspeed

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Spring, TX
    And the Rocket will probably cost the same to build when all is said and done.
     
  20. Dec 26, 2012 #180

    karoliina.t.salminen

    karoliina.t.salminen

    karoliina.t.salminen

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Finland
    Indeed, a fun jet would mean high thrust/weight ratio and light weight will help but also lots of thrust is required to get the ratio great. And then comes the price of the engine or engines.
    And soon we arrive at a concept similar to Viperjet, engine costing something like half million and will carry 1000 kg fuel. The only remaining nice thing if the jet engine would be a low performance one pretty much is that the jet engine is smooth and cool - "it is a jet" after all. And there is no prop obstructing the view. And the engine is fully aerobatic, no problem to run it completely upside down or at negative G loadings as long as is needed.

    I don't think jet engines should be used in personal airplanes that have intention to travel somewhere. Getting somewhere is more efficient at low subsonic speeds with using propeller. I would not have flown the trip I did with the Diamond using a Viperjet even if I would have had one. It would be quite odd to travel around the world with a plane like Viperjet. It would be certainly possible, but filling the fuel tank would cause the credit card balance to get used very quickly and it might prove to be tricky to transfer money from your bank account to your credit card account while on trip on the exotic places of the northern route. Such as in Kuujjuaq without internet, without cellular connectivity and credit card getting dried out already there (with a Viperjet or similar). You might get to sleep on the floor of the little catholic church's guesthouse, like we did (for other reason, our reason was that the other place to sleep was totally full and we were unlucky enough to not have packed a tent with us because we had plan to inflate the life raft to function as tent in case of emergency landing to e.g. Greenland icecap), when you could no longer afford the nearby roughly zero star motel grade place that calls itself a hotel and costs the price of a suite in quality hotel elsewhere. Or maybe the people that can afford a Viperjet have limitless creditcards that will ease the frequent expensive fuel fill-ups.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white