Solid State Aircraft Propulsion System
Discussion
Here is an interesting development for powering an aircraft. I'm not sure how much power it would need for a man carrying aircraft but it appears to have potential.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/21/fi...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/21/fi...
Interesting in a few ways, and that must’ve been a great day for the team when it first flew.
Yeah, drones etc will be the likely home in my lifetime, but the size and weight of such an aircraft just to carry one man means that anything other than drones is impractical for the foreseeable future.
Airliner engines are already fairly quiet, it’s the air moving over the airframe that makes a fair amount of the noise now.
Yeah, drones etc will be the likely home in my lifetime, but the size and weight of such an aircraft just to carry one man means that anything other than drones is impractical for the foreseeable future.
Airliner engines are already fairly quiet, it’s the air moving over the airframe that makes a fair amount of the noise now.
Did you watch the video?
'Has successfully flown for 60 metres'
Yeah, when lobbed off the end of a bloody great ramp by a catapult... and even then it seems mainly to slump into the floor after a few feet.
They're claiming 'comparable thrust to power ratios to that achieved by conventional systems such as jet engines", which is meaningless pseudo-scientific technobabble.
Come back when it can leave the ground under its own thrust and do a controlled circuit of a few hundred metres.
'Has successfully flown for 60 metres'
Yeah, when lobbed off the end of a bloody great ramp by a catapult... and even then it seems mainly to slump into the floor after a few feet.
They're claiming 'comparable thrust to power ratios to that achieved by conventional systems such as jet engines", which is meaningless pseudo-scientific technobabble.
Come back when it can leave the ground under its own thrust and do a controlled circuit of a few hundred metres.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Given a bungee-cord-based launch catapult, the craft could fly about 10 meters when powered off. Fire up the ionic wind, and it could cover 60 meters and would frequently gain altitude while powered on.
So its power could gain 50m over just gliding.Maybe there's something to it, but like I said, come back when it can take off without catapult assistance, and fly a controlled circuit.
Tempest_5 said:
Here is an interesting development for powering an aircraft. I'm not sure how much power it would need for a man carrying aircraft but it appears to have potential.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/21/fi...
wait, what? 600 watts (that's over 3/4 of a horsepower!) to not quite make a plane that weighs just 2.45 "fly" ?? Wow, way to go there with the efficiency i think...https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/21/fi...
(consider that a man powered plane weighing 100kg crossed the channel in 1979 with just about half that power (300w) MacCready_Gossamer_Albatross and you can see how atrocious the propulsive efficiency actually is!! )
Not to mention what happens when the atmosphere is very humid (like in a cloud for example....)
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 22 November 17:58
Equus said:
Did you watch the video?
'Has successfully flown for 60 metres'
Yeah, when lobbed off the end of a bloody great ramp by a catapult... and even then it seems mainly to slump into the floor after a few feet.
They're claiming 'comparable thrust to power ratios to that achieved by conventional systems such as jet engines", which is meaningless pseudo-scientific technobabble.
Come back when it can leave the ground under its own thrust and do a controlled circuit of a few hundred metres.
To be fair though (and whilst your point is completely valid), the Wright Bros first flight wasn't overly long either - I'd suggest, as a step change and 'possible' future technology (i.e. still in its infancy now), this is still impressive stuff.'Has successfully flown for 60 metres'
Yeah, when lobbed off the end of a bloody great ramp by a catapult... and even then it seems mainly to slump into the floor after a few feet.
They're claiming 'comparable thrust to power ratios to that achieved by conventional systems such as jet engines", which is meaningless pseudo-scientific technobabble.
Come back when it can leave the ground under its own thrust and do a controlled circuit of a few hundred metres.
Erm... Would a glider launched off that catapult not manage between 10 and 60m anyway? Personally i'd want to see a lot more evidence than that video before calling the results statistically significant in any way!
Cool if it works though, but i'd have thought the more obvious test would be to mount an anemometer behind a fixed version of the ion wing. Not as sexy as "no moving parts" but control surfaces are all the rage these days!
Cool if it works though, but i'd have thought the more obvious test would be to mount an anemometer behind a fixed version of the ion wing. Not as sexy as "no moving parts" but control surfaces are all the rage these days!
dukeboy749r said:
To be fair though (and whilst your point is completely valid), the Wright Bros first flight wasn't overly long either
They managed four times the distance of this flight, in their first day. It was also a manned flight, not a model, of course.To put this in further perspective, we've done much, much better with steam powered aircraft.
Equus said:
They managed four times the distance of this flight, in their first day. It was also a manned flight, not a model, of course.
To put this in further perspective, we've done much, much better with steam powered aircraft.
Some clever bugger has managed longer wit h an uncut sheet of a4!To put this in further perspective, we've done much, much better with steam powered aircraft.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff