- Thread starter
-
- #21
Top Fuelers are another (they dont care how much fuel they use as long as it doesnt compression lock up !)
Nostalgia drags ??
Reno Racers
Thats all I can think of . Everyone else can use EFI and choose to do so
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
NASCAR is one.
There are test cells that could support recips that put out well over 3000 hp. As far as finding a pilot, there would plenty of takers as what you're proposing isn't really that radical and it isn't going to push any racer that more faster than what you're seeing right now.
Maybe in the US but I doubt they will have anything here in Aus .
Yeah your right its not revolutionary , just an evolution of what was on before . With the right set up I do see the planes going faster . Turbo's are far more efficient than superchargers .
Remember the old days of F1 technology in the 80s where they were running 1000hp+ out of turbocharged 1.5l engine ? That technology is readily available and is so much more flexible these days .
I should start my own race team and build a plane , maybe call it evolutionary bandit or something
You can with enough time and money, but remember, its been done before.
Scaled Composites Pond Racer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And again, even if you got 6000 hp out of an aircraft engine, it doesn't mean you're going to much faster than what's already been seen at Reno. I'm in the jet class and the guy who took first is just short of reaching critical mach at 540 mph. A recip with a big propeller out there isn't going to see much more than 530 mph
who would be the mad pilot to test out the missile !
Interesting link . Would such a light plane pass under todays rules ?
What they did was completely different and it didnt work . The reason for using modern day electronics would be too make things simpler and more effective with fuel on board . This looked like a lot of work and on a knifes edge ! Im suprised by the engine choice . I dont think they really took into account the nature of this particular engine and its drawbacks . If I was to use an automotive engine I would def test it in the car for extended periods first ! Not to mention the ECU would have been very primitive back then , there was no stand alone units back then . Completely different train of thought
You mention 530mph as the limit . Is this the record for a piston engine plane ?
I always thought the hardest part is finding someone who will give me the money to build it.
I don't know what the weight of the Pond racer was I would guess it wouldn't qualify today. As far as testing of the engine and the decision to go with that engine, again I wouldn't know but coming from Rutan, be rest assured that some thought was put into the engine choice. Had it not crashed who knows how it would have matured?
Why would you test it in a car? You will not see the degree of variable RPM in an aircraft as you would see in a car as well as the engine speed if you run with a transmission as opposed to a propeller gearbox, one of the reasons why it could be difficult to put aircraft engines in cars and visa versa.
The record around the Stead course is about 528 mph for a recip. Much faster and the airframe and propeller will start hitting critical mach and one or both will start coming apart due to compressibility, so you see all the HP in the world will limit you at Reno in the Unlimiteds.
I do know there is also course rules that dictate how fast and high the races can fly and this is done based on a 'scatter pattern" should an aircraft crash. These rules were made by the FAA.
In all classes I don't think you're going to see any recip go much faster thjan 530 and the jets go faster than 540 unless there are rule and course changes, and I could tell you that too will not happen.
Never set limits on something that really has none . It just makes men strive harder !
Looking into building a plane . Cost is huge , but will do it over long term . Will keep you posted on findings
What's the weight of a MiG-15 airframe, esp wrt the swept wings, as compared to a typical WWII recip airframe?Ive been looking at alternatives . One would be to use a Mig 15 frame and fit a piston engine in that . Frames are cheap and are proven to 600mph. I think this is the best path to take although my heart is set on an fw190
Can't fly swept wing aircraft at Reno - RARA Rules.Ive been looking at alternatives . One would be to use a Mig 15 frame and fit a piston engine in that . Frames are cheap and are proven to 600mph . I think this is the best path to take although my heart is set on an fw190
It is and as far as what its called it depends on the operator - seen your art work - very cool!!Flyboy, isn't water injection known as ADI? Anti detonation injection, to keep the piston and cylinder walls cool? I did the nose art on Merlins Magic and Stus' T6 with the Tasmanian devil, as well as John Crockers race 6 when it waas sponsored by Ramada Reno. cheers, Bill
What's the weight of a MiG-15 airframe, esp wrt the swept wings, as compared to a typical WWII recip airframe?
Assuming your project engine is going up front, you're almost certainly going to have to resolve the nosewheel issue wrt the engine needing some space. I'm also assuming your engine is a radial or you're going to need lumps and bumps sticking out of a previously clean airframe to provide your cooling and air intake.
I can't see it being a pusher prop unless you change the ground clearance (more weight) and even if you did, you might have weight distribution/c of g issues.
A MiG-15 airframe might be proven to 600mph but I bet it wasn't with a recip.
Why is your heart set on a Fw190 airframe?
Can't fly swept wing aircraft at Reno - RARA Rules.
Ahhh so there is more than the 1 rule of 4500 pound weight minimum !
Anything else that I should know ?
<goes back to drawing board>