So why doesn't that flight hold the record for level flight? Maybe - just maybe - because it wasn't level flight?The 1938 High drag biplane was most definitely not a parabolic flight. It had great big paddle props one blade of witch is on display at the museum of Science and Industry in Chicago
Yeah, his name's Bruce Bohannon, and the plane is the Flying Tiger. And he doesn't hold the under whatever gross weight (C.1(b), 1000kg if you must ask) but the *ABSOLUTE* world record for horizontal flight by a piston engine aircraft. No, he wasn't limited by lack of pressurization. If you read about the flights (it was a series of flights) you'll find they were at the limits of engineering for performance at that altitude. Y'know, engineering - building stuff that the bookheads say should be possible?There is an RV based home built that has the under what ever gross level flight record of 47,000ft or something like that. No P suit or P cabin so he couldn't go higher.
OK, that's it. There is so much wrong in that statement - I give up. Really.Real world with a direct loss inter cooler boiling water at 100 deg F and a 90% effective inter cooler and after cooler I'd say just off of the top of my head about 120F or so. You are going to be boiling away about 2 lbs of water for every lb of fuel so it would take a lot of consumable weight to get from here to there. But a weed hopper should be able to do 450mph at 120,000ft.
In addition to saying that the details need verification of source (citation needed), it also says that Bruce Bohannon's flight was sustained "level flight", but does not make the same claim for the Caproni. Therefore, I would assume that at least part of the Caproni's altitude gain may have come from a zoom-climb maneuver.The highest altitude obtained in a piston-driven propeller aeroplane (without a payload) was 17,083 m (56,047 ft) on October 22, 1938 by Mario Pezzi at Montecelio, Italy in a Caproni Ca.161 driven by a Piaggio XI R.C. engine.
The highest altitude for horizontal flight without a payload is 14,301 m (46,919 ft) set on November 15, 2003 by Bruce Bohannan flying his Bohannon B-1 driven by a Mattituck/Lycoming IO-540 (350 hp) engine over Angleton, Texas.
IndeedSo why doesn't that flight hold the record for level flight? Maybe - just maybe - because it wasn't level flight?
Better check your facts. The Voyager preceded the Condor by several years and the Voyager engines were 4 cylinder.
Jim hitted the bottomline already:So if you want to go 400mph at 80,000ft and 100mph at sea level with the same engine then a piston engine will make the best power plant. For the reason that at 25% power output the piston engine is far more efficient than a turboprop at 1/64th its power output.
What it will take to build an 80,000ft capable engine. Probably 3 stages of turbocharging, a pressurized crank case so that the oil will flow into the oil pump, a fully pressurized ignition system all the way from the plugs to the coils. It will need to be liquid cooled as well.
I will not yet.OK, that's it. There is so much wrong in that statement - I give up. Really.
Would you be surprised if that Rotax had about 8HP power? (100HP, 1/50th of the pressure, max 4 boost)I found a place that will sell you a Rotax 914 converted to run at 80,000ft. I lost the link.
So you want to use a 5/10 seconds lifetime, 5000/8000 lbs or so diesel to put it up to the same altitude as a RAMJET?SR-71 80,000ft. (24.384km)
It's a pity your 'genius' doesn't extend to spelling and grammar....I am brilliant in thermodynamics the way that tesla was brilliant in electromagnetics and wave stuff. He could viualise stuff in his head so well that he could see how a machine wore and fix it before it was built. I'm not quite that good but I've already flown to 80,000ft in my head and it works just fine...
First of all, 80,000 ft is the typically published altitude for the SR-71, but many sources (including pilots, which I have known several) place it quite a bit higher. Second, this really has no bearing on the discussion because most of the high altitude, high speed thrust comes from bypassing the air around the compressor and turbine and running the engine more as a ramjet than a turbojet. The turbine's role at this point was less about thrust and more about running the hydraulic and electrical systems.U2 70,000ft (21.336km) SR-71 80,000ft. (24.384km).