New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by spduffee, Jul 17, 2014.
Would four model jet engines work for this? (like Jetman)
Why not, since all you are doing is flying around the airport.
I don't think a military jet is really a fair comparison--they are in a whole different league of complexity and the cost of operation and maintenance is waaaay different even if the purchase price is similar.
It burns about 300gph.
What are the brand new BD5J kits going for up in oregon? Either way Id rather have an l-39. more space, 2 seats, higher top speed, more range... maintenance isnt too bad on them, and fuel burn is good for a military jet. Yes, you can find l-39s for 130k just have to know where to look
You just plopped down 100,000-150,000. Dropping 100+gs for anything cash and you can probably squeeze a few tankfuls. Not quite the planes for poking around the pattern, but at 550+ cruse you are really going places. I can be in Boston in 2 1/2hours and Oshkosh in a little more than 1. Your king of the airport instead of being laughed at. All at 10% of a P-51 cost. Yes completely impractical, but so is the other one.
Yes. But you probably wouldn't need four of them.
Two nacelles like an ME-262 would be pretty slick!
Same point as an unlimited class sailplane: Someone wants it, can afford it, and enjoys it.
I only need 300 cruse. But to be a head turner, it has to be a jet. If we only can develop a jet as fuel efficient as a piston that is.
Whoa...comparing retired domestic and foreign military jets to the SubSonex??? I'd say that's the farthest thing from a fair comparison, especially from a fuel burn and maintenance perspective. Yes, I am a bit biased because John and Jeremy are friends of mine, but they will tell you that the purpose of 'the jet' is pure unadulterated fun. It's not to get from point A to B or anything in-between. They are gonna be expensive, but there are buyers for this type of fun (I don't have the bank account to be one of them unfortunately). As BJC just said, someone wants it, can afford it, and enjoys it...that's perfectly said.
I have no skin in the game other than living nearby and wishing a company full of great people the very best on this project because if nothing else, it's just so **** cool.
That's not as crazy as you might think. However, to get good BSFC, you need a very large engine. And you need to accept that your fuel economy only really comes at full throttle.
The GE-90 uses less fuel per horsepower than continental or lycoming. I think the CFM-56 is in the same boat. But you need an engine that size to compensate for blade tip leakage, and to keep the air passages large enough that boundary layer doesn't become "the whole layer."
It's not uncommon for the RV guys to get up in that price range, even more so for the RV-10 and RV-14 kits when they are completed.
It really does look great, can’t say I like the engine on top of the fuselage either though. Like the sound too, but gosh, get some serious performance behind it. Surely they are going to do way better than their 170 kts speed. It would be embarrassing to get outrun by a RV or many of the other faster prop driven planes that are already out there.
The airplane has flown just a few times and I'm sure the envelope will be expanded. JSX-1 was able to do 200kt passes down the runway with ease, so I would expect the 170 number to go up. A lot.
And I don't believe for a second that this will compete with an RV on any level. It's only competition is another kit-built jet.
What is the cost and thrust of the largest model airplane jet engine?
What aircraft is not suppose to be pure unadulterated fun?
The thing is if your buying an expensive toy, Im not going to feel sorry for you having to scrape 150K cash. I dont feel sorry for me scraping 5k. No one I know who has an airplane in that upper range is starving. If they did not go buy a brand new Range Rover every year and was driving a 92 Honda Accord, I would cut them some slack; even though their mattress is probably full of money in reality. The RV airforce at my airport is down to about 8 planes from about 15. Only the ratty 3's and 4's are under 50K. Of the RVs say built in the last 5-7 years here, one 7 has about 80K in it, 8A has 100K in it; there is a Harmon F1 with a $20K+ paint job. None are going hungry and most have more than one plane. Me scrapping together my Starduster or wanting to build a Tailwind is not on their level.
Not really. Large engine, no. Large diameter, yes. Current jet engines have mis-match of turbine power and compressor power, and that's why P&W is developing gears for connecting the turbine and the compressor.
No point, except to satisfy those who always seem to want more power. I know that for the Sonex, the current arrangement with one centrally mounted engine is probably optimal for weight, performance, and easy maintenance access.
I suppose, too, that the T-37 drove my comment a bit... a fun plane to fly with good basic flying qualities.
It's not just purchase price either, as noted, cost of ownership is the killer. Also, probably a lot more wanna be jet pilots with money that could safely fly it vs. a millitary jet at 500+ mph. It's got to be a much shorter learning curve. Heck, a carbon cub is right around the same price and just as much of a toy. Not in my rice range, but if they can sell a few and make their money back on it, more power too them. I hope it works out
Separate names with a comma.