WonderousMountain
Well-Known Member
Just spray the engine directly, and cool the charge.
If you go the one big engine route, I recommend X-20 arrangement.
If you go the one big engine route, I recommend X-20 arrangement.
You only live once and you can't take the money with you as they say... Don't dream- do!Rv6ejguy now you’re just making me daydream about a 3/4 scale Tsunami for sport class...
The last time I followed the sport racing class, there was a requirement for the aircraft to be kit built.I dont think it's trivial to get 1000hp and make it survive continuous use. Maybe if you use 2 engines. I believe the Pond Racer would qualify for sport class. It was fast enough it you could get some more reliable power in it.
It is difficult (some say impossible) to have two separate engines and support structures that don’s have more drag than a single engine configuration with an engine of the same total displacement.The pond racer was a cool design. Seems like I remember remember some having the opinion that aerodynamic wise it wasn’t that great.
Considering it never made the power it was supposed to, it turned some respectable speeds though.
No doubt,It is difficult (some say impossible) to have two separate engines and support structures that don’s have more drag than a single engine configuration with an engine of the same total displacement.
BJC
Yeah, 3 fuselage structures relatively close together along with all the intersections with the wing and horizontal stab seem like a deal breaker at unlimited speeds.It is difficult (some say impossible) to have two separate engines and support structures that don’s have more drag than a single engine configuration with an engine of the same total displacement.
The Pond Racer was just another oddball design by whats-his-name.
BJC
While I agree with this, I suspect that one of the design drivers may have been that it is easier to divide that power between two props rather than one giant one, given a small-ish airframe. Just a guess.It is difficult (some say impossible) to have two separate engines and support structures that don’s have more drag than a single engine configuration with an engine of the same total displacement.
Looks deadly. Wonder what it's L/D might be?While I agree with this, I suspect that one of the design drivers may have been that it is easier to divide that power between two props rather than one giant one, given a small-ish airframe. Just a guess.
I'm eager to see these LS-powered contenders Ross alluded to. There have been some other weird attempts in the past...
View attachment 102507View attachment 102509
Finally, some art that's worth what some folks will pay for it.I'm not sure if the planes he made were ever intended to fly. May have been more of a mechanical art thing.
I could see why he did the coaxial thing: to eliminate torque roll on takeoff and climb. Those short wings would have a hard time with that.That co-axial thing makes no overall sense. Just put all 8 or more blades on one fan like every modern jet airliner.
To put all the blades on the same hub would require the power from the two engines to be merged in a complicated transmission somehow. This way he just has a drive shaft from each engine going to each hubThat co-axial thing makes no overall sense. Just put all 8 or more blades on one fan like every modern jet airliner.