VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   Alternative Engines (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Turbine Aeronautics (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=148635)

airguy 05-14-2019 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by breister (Post 1346458)
While O2 tanks do lose some weight slowly as they discharge, the difference in weight change over a flight is far less than for fuel. Locating them where a header tank would have been would result in far less CG change than a comparable fuel tank.

You missed the point entirely. It was never about CG, it was about the oxygen.

Throw a rod on the engine, ventilate the block and fill the FWF with an oil fire - now lets think for about half a second about what happens when the oxygen tank ruptures/leaks and turns your airplane into a blowtorch, with you on the downwind side.

Adding a second firewall further forward and then putting those things in the new firewall-aft space has some merit - but some things should NOT be FWF.

Darin Watson 05-14-2019 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airguy (Post 1346475)
You missed the point entirely. It was never about CG, it was about the oxygen.

...not to mention the inevitable drop of oil or oil mist around O2....I?ll take the next fight, thanks.

breister 05-17-2019 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airguy (Post 1346475)
You missed the point entirely. It was never about CG, it was about the oxygen.

Throw a rod on the engine, ventilate the block and fill the FWF with an oil fire - now lets think for about half a second about what happens when the oxygen tank ruptures/leaks and turns your airplane into a blowtorch, with you on the downwind side.

Adding a second firewall further forward and then putting those things in the new firewall-aft space has some merit - but some things should NOT be FWF.

I don't think it would be the issue you make it out to be. Yes, there would be a momentary increase in combustion temperature - but only momentary.

Edit: Reading back through this, somebody misunderstood me. I did not advocate for O2 forward of the firewall, but in lieu of the header tank.

airguy 05-17-2019 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by breister (Post 1347089)
I don't think it would be the issue you make it out to be. Yes, there would be a momentary increase in combustion temperature - but only momentary.

Edit: Reading back through this, somebody misunderstood me. I did not advocate for O2 forward of the firewall, but in lieu of the header tank.

Fair enough on your position choice - but as for the momentary increase in combustion temperature, I'm going to disagree.

I have a fair bit of experience in "assisting" things normally not considered to be fuels to burn in the presence of various oxidizers. I know what can happen, I've seen it and done it, and I prefer not to let it happen in an aircraft.

Now back to the subject at hand - what is the ballpark timeframe on this RV14 install?

breister 05-19-2019 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airguy (Post 1347099)
Fair enough on your position choice - but as for the momentary increase in combustion temperature, I'm going to disagree.

I have a fair bit of experience in "assisting" things normally not considered to be fuels to burn in the presence of various oxidizers. I know what can happen, I've seen it and done it, and I prefer not to let it happen in an aircraft.

You can disagree. IMHO the air moving under the cowl would blow any O2 short of a catastrophic tank failure clear too fast to materially affect combustion unless fuel were streaming directly onto the leak or the tank was otherwise right up against the source of fuel, which would indeed be a foolish installation choice. A catastrophic failure would empty the tank almost immediately.

I played around with O2 tanks too as a kid, both in a welding shop and a steel mill where everything was oily.... It might be fun if we had lots of government funding to run simulations to find out how likely various installations and disasters would be to cause a catastrophe... :D

Sue 05-28-2019 01:10 PM

O2
 
I agree, just a momentary rise in pressure and
Temperature, then shortly after you can look for
Your clothes and the rest of your aircraft.

breister 07-17-2019 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbine Aeronautics (Post 1346342)
I don't think anyone is advocating having header tanks/oxy tanks etc. forward of the firewall. If anyone did do that, they should probably be reported to the TSA as a suspicious person.

However, if the firewall could be moved forward 6-12", there would be scope to add weight aft of the new firewall location, but well forward for cg purposes.

Dave

That's a very interesting idea, on the small Lancairs that would create a small space to install permanent O2 which in turn would help with the W&B change using the lighter engine.

Been two months since we've heard from you - any development updates for your fans? Is there somewhere (Facebook, etc.) where you post progress?

Turbine Aeronautics 07-18-2019 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by breister (Post 1360259)
That's a very interesting idea, on the small Lancairs that would create a small space to install permanent O2 which in turn would help with the W&B change using the lighter engine.

Been two months since we've heard from you - any development updates for your fans? Is there somewhere (Facebook, etc.) where you post progress?

Hi Bill,

We are trying to keep our publicity low key until we have tangible, running hardware that folks can see and where we have demonstrable and verifiable performance figures. Too many folks have been promised new fangled inventions that have not delivered and consequently, folks are wary.

Our approach has always been to remain low key until we are no longer vapor ware, so we are refraining from getting out there until we have something real to show (website aside).

As our prototype engine comes together during Q4 this year in preparation for its first runs late this year/early next year, we will publicize our progress more actively on social media. A Facebook page will probably be the main interactive forum.

As of now, the development work is progressing in a very pleasing manner. We shall shortly be prototyping and testing some of our individual components to verify the actual performance of those components against the theoretical performance.

I speak with my Chief Technical Officer on a daily basis and it?s a bit like a soap opera. I can?t wait for the next installment. This is a very exciting project for me and to see it coming together, with a light at the end of the tunnel is a great feeling. Of course, I need to temper my expectations because this is a complex technical program that we are running. It would be unrealistic to expect that once on the stand, we can push the start button and it will work right first time. However, we have a very experienced team of designers working on our engine and their knowledge and experience will help minimize the potential pitfalls.

I?ll be at Oshkosh for the week. I?d be happy to catch up with folks that want to meet up (I am meeting many of the airframe manufacturers and other suppliers so my time will be a bit restricted). If folks on this forum show an interest, we may be able to coordinate to meet at an eatery or display where I?d be happy to answer what questions I can.

Dave

Jpm757 07-18-2019 08:37 AM

Best of luck with your project!

rv6ejguy 07-18-2019 08:56 AM

Total class act Dave. This is how new engine (and airframe) projects should be done.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:37 AM.