tbone3366
New Member
Joined: June 2024
Posts: 7
|
Post by tbone3366 on Jun 16, 2024 15:15:13 GMT -5
Hi, this is my first time here,
I do have a decent background in aviation as I worked for a teardown buissness
I also have a good amount of time with powered ultralights and plan to build a part103 craft then if the twin hx35 idea works out move to experimental
The hx35 uses a 54x78mm with an AR of .89
I wanted to see about funneling both into a single combustion chamber then exhaust out both turbine housing to keep a flat shape and keep my center of gravity close to my lift
The design I have in mind is a delta wing with a high aspect ratio similar to the delta Duke
Again thank you for your time, hoping to find some good info here
|
|
richardm
Senior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Joined: June 2022
Posts: 326
|
Post by richardm on Jun 17, 2024 3:49:26 GMT -5
Could work as long as both compressors are running at the exact same pressure ratio. And that will be very hard to achieve Mainly because the outflow of hot gases from the combustion chamber will need to be equally divided and then adjusted to get both turbo to run at the same speed and pressure ratio. How do you plan to start both at the same time keeping equal PR on both sides?
|
|
|
Post by racket on Jun 17, 2024 4:10:09 GMT -5
Hi
Welcome to the Forum :-)
Even with two HX35 turbo , your total thrust level will be kinda limited , maybe 75 - 80 lbs :-(
For safety reasons , two separate engines would be better , twin engined aircraft are much safer , with one engine out you still have some power available to find a suitable landing site .
Cheers John
|
|
tbone3366
New Member
Joined: June 2024
Posts: 7
|
Post by tbone3366 on Jun 17, 2024 8:05:58 GMT -5
Hi Welcome to the Forum :-) Even with two HX35 turbo , your total thrust level will be kinda limited , maybe 75 - 80 lbs :-( For safety reasons , two separate engines would be better , twin engined aircraft are much safer , with one engine out you still have some power available to find a suitable landing site . Cheers John Understood I was thinking with the larger turbine might be able to efficiently produce more thrust by splitting the heat but I understand. My other option is the GT45 style turbos that have an 88mm inducer and 77.5mm exducer
|
|
tbone3366
New Member
Joined: June 2024
Posts: 7
|
Post by tbone3366 on Jun 17, 2024 8:22:33 GMT -5
Hi Welcome to the Forum :-) Even with two HX35 turbo , your total thrust level will be kinda limited , maybe 75 - 80 lbs :-( For safety reasons , two separate engines would be better , twin engined aircraft are much safer , with one engine out you still have some power available to find a suitable landing site . Cheers John What would I be looking at for fuel flow per hour for a pair of that size
|
|
richardm
Senior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Joined: June 2022
Posts: 326
|
Post by richardm on Jun 17, 2024 8:39:20 GMT -5
Whatever the configuration the thrust to weight ratio will be terrible for flying. In my opinion those home built engines are fun to build and play with but I should never be used for flying. Are you really serious when you're talking about building a plane around a modified turbo charger?
|
|
|
Post by racket on Jun 17, 2024 16:35:46 GMT -5
Even a couple of larger turbos like the GT45 flowing ~1.5 lbs/sec each , 3 lbs/sec will only provide ~150 -170 lbs of thrust , but will burn 180 lbs of fuel per hour , >20 GPH is several times what you want to be using for that limited amount of thrust and large amount of weight as Richard mentioned.
Pure jet power is "obsolete" for aircraft, other than very limited usage................but OK for powering a kart with flames and thunder :-)
|
|
tbone3366
New Member
Joined: June 2024
Posts: 7
|
Post by tbone3366 on Jun 17, 2024 16:57:16 GMT -5
Whatever the configuration the thrust to weight ratio will be terrible for flying. In my opinion those home built engines are fun to build and play with but I should never be used for flying. Are you really serious when you're talking about building a plane around a modified turbo charger? It was something I wanted to look at to use instead of my Rotax 447 But as the comment below states The fuel consumption for what I get is nowhere near worthwhile but I learned a bit more about them and I thank you both
|
|
|
Post by racket on Jun 17, 2024 17:29:59 GMT -5
Even the best RC turbines use more than 1 lb of fuel/hr for every pound of thrust , you can't beat a large prop for slow speed use , stick to the Rotax .
Sorry about dashing your dreams , but unfortunately its the Laws of Physics we're battling .
|
|
tbone3366
New Member
Joined: June 2024
Posts: 7
|
Post by tbone3366 on Jun 17, 2024 17:55:19 GMT -5
Even the best RC turbines use more than 1 lb of fuel/hr for every pound of thrust , you can't beat a large prop for slow speed use , stick to the Rotax . Sorry about dashing your dreams , but unfortunately its the Laws of Physics we're battling . Oh no worries, I learned a good amount from this post alone and I held a grain of salt knowing how much fuel the private single engine Jets use and such But I'll stick around for another project later down the road
|
|
|
Post by racket on Jun 17, 2024 18:45:49 GMT -5
We'll be here to help :-)
A turbine driving a prop is a far more efficient option , a 100 lb thrust engine can produce 100 SHP when a freepower turbine is used downstream
|
|
tbone3366
New Member
Joined: June 2024
Posts: 7
|
Post by tbone3366 on Jun 17, 2024 23:42:07 GMT -5
We'll be here to help :-) A turbine driving a prop is a far more efficient option , a 100 lb thrust engine can produce 100 SHP when a freepower turbine is used downstream that would mean i would only need to make about 40lbs of thrust to drive a 60 inch 3 blade prop, assuming im thinking about this correctly
|
|
|
Post by racket on Jun 18, 2024 1:21:19 GMT -5
|
|
jetric
Veteran Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Joined: December 2014
Posts: 141
|
Post by jetric on Jun 18, 2024 1:46:04 GMT -5
Here's the most cost effective way of powering a light aircraft with a turbine engine, youtu.be/GhaEoBtxdzE?si=UVXiXSL1-j3DueYa He uses a rotax CT2023 starter apu from a harrier jump jet with 86shp, the new version of this starter apu is the Lucas CR201, fuel burn rate is 1 litre per minute at full power. Richard S. We'll be here to help :-) A turbine driving a prop is a far more efficient option , a 100 lb thrust engine can produce 100 SHP when a freepower turbine is used downstream that would mean i would only need to make about 40lbs of thrust to drive a 60 inch 3 blade prop, assuming im thinking about this correctly
|
|
tbone3366
New Member
Joined: June 2024
Posts: 7
|
Post by tbone3366 on Jun 20, 2024 18:53:41 GMT -5
Here's the most cost effective way of powering a light aircraft with a turbine engine, youtu.be/GhaEoBtxdzE?si=UVXiXSL1-j3DueYa He uses a rotax CT2023 starter apu from a harrier jump jet with 86shp, the new version of this starter apu is the Lucas CR201, fuel burn rate is 1 litre per minute at full power. Richard S. that would mean i would only need to make about 40lbs of thrust to drive a 60 inch 3 blade prop, assuming im thinking about this correctly What about driving a turbo prop but using more turbine stages to improve efficiency Along with a form of ram air in the front
|
|