Engine discussion ?

[Stevey]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Hey sorry I was so late getting back to you, Im in the middle of building a couple engines. I think you can do it Juke. Do you have any plans you can post on here? Id love to see em! Anyways I gotta get back to work Im on a deadline. Ive got some big plans coming! For cars and planes lol.

Steve

[First time Juke]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Do you have any plans you can post on here? Id love to see em!

This is really where my expertise ends...I was thinking a wooden plane with certain metal parts like in a Mossie. Not that I would not understand about details..I just have no experience building a real airplane. If one intends to make a lite metal kite of this then P-51 H is the source for fine details.

The " thing " if you will in my TS II was / is that wing has been swept and moved forward...gear folds in the wing and does not come to fuselage area...partially fuel tanks are also in the wings. Flying tail and naca scoops and some packing for all major parts to save space. This was the main goal...to make it sleek and small, but not too small.

Anyone who feels this could be ok...can go forward from here. This whole kite is 50% a team effort with folks in Pylon 1 and AAFO.com

rgds,

Juke

[Stevey]

Re: Engine discussion ?

I cant see wood being a very stable structure. I realise some lower performance/older planes were built with wood and cloth. The thing is you were talking about 2500 hp at one point, wood will not be able to hold that kind of hp. You would have to make it VERY strong and VERY heavy. I cannot see that being a very good option. Have you made sketches of you plane? Could you scan them? I dont understand quite what your saying and Id like to see it {Im a visual learner}.

Steve

[First time Juke]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Have you made sketches of you plane? Could you scan them? I dont understand quite what your saying and Id like to see it {Im a visual learner}.

Stevey,

There are even jets made outa wood like Vampire.

Here is the TS II like it has been for two years now;

[First time Juke]

Re: Engine discussion ?

To be 100% honest...one little change has taken place...flightposture is more upright ( tail high ) and prop thrust vector thus changed a bit..like in the enclosed pic.

Wing structure has been the main concern so far...the FW 190 D-9 wing is pretty good to start with structure wise.

The model wing is a very rugged wood piece. Wing tanks would have to be in between main spar and trailing edge spar ( possibly forming a hollow shell structure ).

[Stevey]

Re: Engine discussion ?

That looks pretty cool Juke, it kinda reminds me of a P-51. Can you tell me where you founf those power to weight ratios you posted a while back in this thread? Do you have any more info like that?

Steve

[First time Juke]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Can you tell me where you found those power to weight ratios you posted a while back in this thread? Do you have any more info like that?

Steve

I have been figuring them out...this TS II would be 1,27 hp/kg..definitely in par with Rare Bear. I am not sure of Rare Bear power to weight ratio but I take an educated guess and it is very close if not above 1,0 hp/kg.

I search the sites ( Heinkel H-100 D ) and just calculated them when known power and weight are given.

There is a peculiar thing...It seems that a bigger plane with same power ratio seem to be faster..I think the pilot + avionics compo wight cannot be changed and thus more power gives more reserve power to lessen the pilot weight.

See Pogo...huge props and small and nearly 5850 ! Estimated top speed 610 mph.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/convair_pogo.htm

Power to weight ratio 1,0 hp/kg.

[First time Juke]

Re: Engine discussion ?

That looks pretty cool Juke, it kinda reminds me of a P-51.

It also reminds a bit of the straight winged Dewoitine 520 fighter.
This is considerably "packed" version of a Mustang. Pretty much like Tsunami concept..less frontal area and less wetted area..the need to escort bombers is no longer there this has no guns nor ammo and holds less fuel.

[Stevey]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Wow my purposed plane has quite the power to weight ratio. Combine that with some half decent aerodynamics and a strong structure and she should be pretty fast! .

Steve

[First time Juke]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Wow my purposed plane has quite the power to weight ratio. Combine that with some half decent aerodynamics and a strong structure and she should be pretty fast! .

Steve

Stevey,

Let's see your intented racer 3-views !

Finnish AF had a plan in 1943 to make small wooden fighter armed with just 20 mm cannon to tackle with new the enemy fighters. It was to use the same DB engines as the Me 109 G-2's already had in the squadrons. This Puuska PM-3 fighter was really small and in 1943 planned to go 450 mph. I recall it was supposed to be just 7,8 meters in span. The arrival of the Me 109 G-6s ( + 10s ) made all these plans futile. After the war a one wooden PM-1 was made; it was bigger than Me 109 G and slower.

I think a small plane wit lotsa HP:s could be the answer if carefully planned.


rgds,

Juke


BTW: Here is the data of the last Heinkel piston "racer" P1076.

http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/hep1076.html

Insert from the story: Although this project did not see the light of day (although Siegfried Günter completed detailed drawings and plans for the Americans in mid-1945), it probably would have been one of the fastest piston-engined propeller aircraft ever built.

Last FW was supposed to have 0,6 hp/kg power to weight ratio and go 725 kmh.

http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwbmw802.html

[Stevey]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Unfortunatly Juke I do not have a scanner, and I only have very bad drawings. I am currently working on having some better plans drawn out. See I have it in my head and I know all the dimensions etc but I'm a terrible artist and am computer illeterate. So I have my girlfriend helping me do some 1/4 scale plans. Not that I need them but if/when I start to produce a kit I will need something to go by/send as instructions.

To try and picture it think of a small P-51 fuselage without the cooling duct on the bottom and the exhaust. Then add the wings and epennage of a NXT. That should give you the basic idea. Theres some more changing to it etc but thats the basic look. Itll be all carbon fiber "skins" with tube frame inside and maybe some reinforced structural "foam" for more support in spots that are needed.

That heinkel looks pretty neat!

Steve

[First time Juke]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Yes Ernst Heinkel solved the heavy engine installation induced CG problem like Burt Rutan in the Pond Racer by making a forward swept wings.

[Stevey]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Yea that would be a problem luckily my engine is going to be pretty small compared to some others.

Steve

[First time Juke]

Re: Engine discussion ?

To try and picture it think of a small P-51 fuselage without the cooling duct on the bottom and the exhaust. Then add the wings and epennage of a NXT. That should give you the basic idea.

That heinkel looks pretty neat!

Here is a better pic of the FW 802

http://www.luft46.com/vaart/gg802-1.jpg

Pretty bad or what ?


Very fashionable to make a plane wings look like NXT; all small electro R/C racers look a bit like it.

Is it a metal plane or a fiber/carbon structure ? Could metal kite be made to look like NXT in a small racer ?

[Stevey]

Re: Engine discussion ?

Man that thing looks MEAN! Yea It wont be exactly like a NXT but it will be sorta the same look. Do you mean my plane? Itll be carbon/kevlar composite with a metal tube frame inside.

Steve