Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:17 pm
Wow! very cool. can't wait to see if it goes.
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:06 pm
Been away for a while and see what happens
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
but for such a beasty engine its looking small. Some quick calculations show this can size up to a 6" diameter tail and would fall under a 6' length.
Ahh well, baby steps....
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:27 pm
The hell with baby steps, just do it
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:42 pm
I'm going to need a bigger stand for a 6"
Actually it starts easier with less chamber volume. Able to push it a little now, injector failure at the end. It was difficult to hold the injectors in the intake, the engine tended to push them out as the throttle increased. I had forgotten this setup tends to do that.
I can see the pressure pulses beating the ground a few feet behind the engine, didn't see them in the last run.
The ratio of cylinder to cone length is near 1:2.25 using a 20 degree cone.
Propane tanks were only about half full at the start of the run.
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:57 pm
any updates about the thrust obtained from this engine. very curious to know
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:38 pm
Will soon be liquid fueling a smaller engine, then work up to this one. The days are still hot here, typical 94F, 34.4C
I owe Nick a jar build and would still like to tinker with the wood burner. The economy and job market here require that I apply considerable resources to a regular job.
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:26 am
It's cold outside now
Any updates with this engine? It's very interesting
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:17 pm
Still working with the small stuff for now. Thanks for asking its good to see you here.
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:51 pm
and I will look forward to seeing and hearing more of this beast!
I'll probably be bugging you soon as I have just thrown together a pj loosely following your recipe
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:29 pm
I can't stop coming back to this thread!
I want to build one of these, would you be ok with me having a go at one? I have a load of 1mm mild sheet that needs using
Regardless of actual figures, is it "powerful" for its size and shape, I know you havent pushed it hard yet but you must have an idea of some kind, ie would you guess at it being comparable with m25, m40, dreadnought ect ect
Do you fancy making a drawing of the current incarnation but with some of theoretical improvements? Maybe a proposed 6inch tail drawing
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:53 pm
I would be ok with it, but be fore warned, it is a big fueling challenge. Two intakes as on the m40 would be much easier.
Only thing I would change on a 6 inch tail size would be to eliminate the tail expansion. At that scale it really shouldn't be needed.
Also since it hasn't been run at full power It may melt or burn through. The CCs, may have to stand off the tail a bit more, but it is better for them to be close as in its current form. Basically the tail and CCs are sharing heat.
Thrust is untested as it is underfueled. The only indication is when it locks in she slams violently against the stand. Typically this wouldn't be significant, but the engine is over built and weighs near 40 pounds.
The drawings needed to create it are a cone pattern for the CC and one for the head plate. I suppose I could draft those in the next couple of weeks.
Thanks for the interest.
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:55 am
Ace, that's really great and no worries Iam interested in anything unconventional!
I was actually supposed to ask your opinion on swapping back to your original individual intakes, but m40 intakes would work nicely, maybe
Just a few dimensions would suffice, I reckon. Might be an idea to blend 2 m40s or go with 2x m40 cc and intakes with 1x m40 exhaust section.
I think ill draft up an engine and show it too you! Maybe just some caliber measurements would be enough too get me going.
Thanks again for your help. Oh and burning through! We will worry about that when it happens
and if it can shift a 40lb engine (weight) on the stand then that indicates enough for what I want
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:45 pm
The 51" length version requires the 6 intakes as part of the aerodynamic valving. Going with 2 would put it back to 67.5" length.
The 51" length represent 6 blended bodies:
The M25 would probably be a good next step, fabricating 6 intakes can drive a man insane, ha
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:44 pm
Ah yes sorry, silly me i do remember reading that now, after re reading this entire thread for the 4th time and re reading the blended bodies thread for the 3rd time, iam now starting to get me head around all of this!!
I have much more undestanding of blended bodies and why you have built the kraken in this fashion, iam still intending on building something similar in the future but yes, m25 will do for me at the moment