Yeah right. Whatever. I think it is out of your league.
But true, safety and hazards are a concern. I don't know of the
designer's original intent was to make the RC jet more realistic or it
was modified for performance purposes.
Thanks anyways.
Nick
>Yeah right. Whatever. I think it is out of your league.
>
>But true, safety and hazards are a concern. I don't know of the
>designer's original intent was to make the RC jet more realistic or it
>was modified for performance purposes.
Okay, let's put it this way.
There would be no benefit in injecting and igniting raw fuel into the
exhaust stream of a DF model. The exhaust gas velocity and
temperature is too low for it to provide any additional thrust.
A model turbine could, in theory, gain similar benefits as full-scale
jets, and at a comparably increased fuel consumption rate, which is
already quite high.
Remember, an F16 that can fly at full mil power for a couple of hours
has only about 15 minutes in 'burner.
It sounds to me like someone was dreaming.
As far as a true DF plane, no way.
Honestly, the question did look like a troll.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Nicholas Dinh - 20 May 2004 18:03 GMT
Thanks Rich. It is clear now there are no performance advantage even if
the feat was possible. I've only seen a few DF jets fly and looks to me
like they go fast enough already.
I think any modifications to simulate a real full scale jet would only
be to make it more authentic visually.
I am an aerospace engineer, although a newbie to the RC world, was
interested in seeing how this could have been achieved. Thanks for the
great insight. I guess this newsgroup really has intelligent people here.
Thanks,
Nick
>>Yeah right. Whatever. I think it is out of your league.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> --- Rich
> http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Brian Hampton - 21 May 2004 10:02 GMT
Actually putting an AB on a ducted fan would be far easier than on a
turbojet. All an AB does is raise the temp/pressure/velocity of the
exhaust gases which in a normal turbine only uses up about 5% of the
available oxygen in the core engine if it's not a turbofan.
On a jet engine, the nozzle area is critical in that if it can't be
opened when in AB mode then the extra back pressure will stall the
compressor. Not really a problem with a ducted fan except the engine
would slow down slightly.
Heat in the tailpipe for full sized engines is only necessary to
vapourise the liquid fuel which runs through small diameter pipes and
exits through tiny holes around the fuel ring as a gas. For a cold
airstream then LPG or BBQ fuel would be necessary. Upstream of the fuel
line (and very close to it) is what's called a flameholder. This just
provides an area of stagnant air so the full airstream doesn't blow out
the flame. A source of ignition must also be used even in a full sized
after burning engine, the temp of the exhaust isn't enough for ignition.
Most use what's called a "hot streak" ignition where maybe 50cc of fuel
is injected through the turbine and as the name implies gives a raw
flame which then lights up the vapour from the AB feed line.
So it's doable but you'd need to make sure the tailpipe was well
insulated :)
Brian Hampton
Adelaide, South Oz
> Thanks Rich. It is clear now there are no performance advantage even if
> the feat was possible.
mn - 22 May 2004 16:39 GMT
> Actually putting an AB on a ducted fan would be far easier than on a
> turbojet. All an AB does is raise the temp/pressure/velocity of the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> compressor. Not really a problem with a ducted fan except the engine
> would slow down slightly.
This argument assumes that the fixed nozzle gets chocked with AB on.
If the quantity of AB fuel remains low, one could run the engine w/o
fan stability issues. I don't know whether anyone has ever taken
measurements of dry engine model nozzle flow, pressure & jet
velocities to estimate the choke margin but already I can see a small
science project for some of the young keen enthusiasts out there.
> Heat in the tailpipe for full sized engines is only necessary to
> vapourise the liquid fuel which runs through small diameter pipes and
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> > Thanks Rich. It is clear now there are no performance advantage even if
> > the feat was possible.
Nicholas Dinh - 20 May 2004 18:05 GMT
Thanks Rich. It is clear now there are no performance advantage even if
the feat was possible. I've only seen a few DF jets fly and looks to me
like they go fast enough already.
I think any modifications to simulate a real full scale jet would only
be to make it more authentic visually.
I am an aerospace engineer, although a newbie to the RC world, was
interested in seeing how this could have been achieved. Thanks for the
great insight. I guess this newsgroup really has intelligent people here.
Thanks,
Nick
>>Yeah right. Whatever. I think it is out of your league.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> --- Rich
> http://richlockyer.tripod.com/