Gluhareff 130R power failure issue still open ... Any Idear?

Moderator: Mike Everman

Locked
Mike Everman
Posts: 4894
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:18 pm

I was waiting for the sound of crickets to die down, and the teacher just give in and tell us the answer! I'm sitting way in the back, anyway...
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

The answer is ...

Post by luc » Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:11 am

He he he ... Nope Mark,

For an aircraft that would would operate in California ... It would have to be equipped with bigger engine (PW-127 ... 2700 shaft Hp).

And it is simple. At 90°F, there is less air, therefore less fuel mixture and less power. So ... A PW-120 would have to be almost all the time very close to full throttle, in order to maintain that 2000 Hp. mark.

So putting bigger engines, would would mean less throttle, even at higher ambient temprature.

Remember, 2 identical planes, i working in North pole and the other in Brasil, won't have the same engine Hp ratings. And its got nothing to do with profits.

And this also why, like I already said, the pressurejet has no futur in the aircraft industries ...

End of Classs nowwww .... I want that aple on my desk before you kids leave .... Ta Ta now .... And don't forget your home works ... he he he.

TTFN

Luc ..... Out
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mark
Posts: 10684
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by Mark » Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:28 am

Hi Luc,
I was at work tonight killing time so I read up on your Canadian water tanker. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/g ... 15CAN.html

http://home.ca.inter.net/~rapickler/215.html

Most of the hits had bigger engines than what you offered in the test. Still I can't help but think these bigger engines would have cost more and would have been the most profit for this company. : ) And I couldn't help but wonder why all your engines listed were smaller than what I read about. So now I am home and have read that I failed the test, alas though, I did bother to read up on your query.
By the way, my brother-in-law use to be president of UTC International, (United Technologies), he handled all overseas trade for Pratt and Whitney.
Mark

Mark
Posts: 10684
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by Mark » Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:55 am

PS I have taken flying lessons and studied about thrust, take off distances and temperatures, it's not all that fascinating, you can look that stuff up if you need to know or your life depends on it. I'm pretty sure no one would like to run an engine full grease just to maintain flight or whisker the chance of a stall.
I remember practicing pulling out of a spin, intentionally stalling, then heading straight for earth, round and round, until you get moving again, the controls don't do much until the air starts flowing over the surfaces fast enough.
Mark

Mark
Posts: 10684
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by Mark » Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:02 am

PSS I'm not the one who spent $130,000 dollars on a pressure jet either. Maybe I should be giving you a test.
Mark

Mark
Posts: 10684
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by Mark » Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:14 am

PSSSS
I see the PW 2800 only puts out 2100 pounds of thrust, how confusing is that? Anyway, as Captain Kirk would say, "More power Scotty!"
Mark

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

answers to Mark

Post by luc » Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:06 pm

Hi Mark,

Mark said :
Most of the hits had bigger engines than what you offered in the test. Still I can't help but think these bigger engines would have cost more and would have been the most profit for this company. : ) And I couldn't help but wonder why all your engines listed were smaller than what I read about. So now I am home and have read that I failed the test, alas though, I did bother to read up on your query.
By the way, my brother-in-law use to be president of UTC International, (United Technologies), he handled all overseas trade for Pratt and Whitney.
Simple Mark ... The PW serie engine has been around since a good time now. In 1986, I was part of a team that swaped 52 PW-118 on an Embraer 120, in a High Altitude Surge test program. I was sub-contract by Pratt and withney for aprx. 8 months and mostly worked on PT6, JT15D and the PW series. But this was in 1986.

Then, 10 years after, I managed a test site at the Lakehurst Naval Base, in New Jersey, where I tested the PW-535, 306 and the 308, all fan engines and the PW-150, which is a 5000 Hp/Shatf engine. So, as you can see, in ten years, the engines and also the PW serie has eveolved alot and I did'nt kept track of it all. Also, when we test an engine, we usually know on what aircraft it is ment to go ... But sometime, for some contractual reasons the engine don't make to the the original plane they were ment for.

As for the CL-215 ... This aircraft originally started with radial engines and today, I beleive they are up to the CL-215-400, if I am not mistaken.

Another thing Mark ... You are also confusing Shaft Hp with thrust. In my previous message, I was always refering to the Shaft Horse power, when talking about turbo-props engine and this is how you should do it also.
In this trade, when talking about Turbo-props, we use the Shaft Hp or Npt Shaft output. Fan and jets standard power measurement are in Pnds of thrust .... 2 different thing here. So ... If I still got that right, your PW-2800 is suppose to have an NPT shaft output of 8000 Hp. @ 18,000 rpm I beleive. The 2100 pnds of thrust you'r refering to, depends on the props you put on that engine (i.e : 4, 5, or 6 blades, diameter and tip configuration).

So I guess this infor clarify a few things, but yes Mark, you can probably quote me on "What engine went were" ... I mostly lost track of all this now.

And ... Yes, please post your little test ... It should be fun and interesting.

Cya,

Luc
Luc
Designer & Inventor

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

PSSSSS....

Post by luc » Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:29 pm

Pssssss .... Mark,

I am not the one who spent $130,000.00 ...
My boss did ... He he he.
Hoooo ... And it is more like $250,000.00 (1/4 million) now.
PS I have taken flying lessons and studied about thrust, take off distances and temperatures, it's not all that fascinating, you can look that stuff up if you need to know or your life depends on it. I'm pretty sure no one would like to run an engine full grease just to maintain flight or whisker the chance of a stall.
I remember practicing pulling out of a spin, intentionally stalling, then heading straight for earth, round and round, until you get moving again, the controls don't do much until the air starts flowing over the surfaces fast enough.
Mark ... The above exemple I used for the little test was at large ... Aproximative numbers to make peoples understand why the pressurejet never had and never will have an aeronautical futur.

We all know that no one want to run anything ... Full grease ... And that exactly what my point was. A pressure jet need to be at Full Grease, to deliver its power... We proove that.

Psssssssss ........ Cya,

Luc
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mark
Posts: 10684
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by Mark » Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:12 pm

OK Luc,
I think I have agreed with you in all that you said about the Gluhareff, the bit about efficiency and the strange quality of cutting back power beyond a point only to find you can't get it back, kind of like a submarine that goes a little too deep, no more buoyancy. I use to invert a tiny test tube in a 2 liter plastic bottle of water and cap the bottle. Then you could gently squeeze the bottle and the tube with an air pocket in it would sink and rise but if you sunk it too deep, it would never rise back up. It was very sensitive to the slightest pressure.
So for fuel efficiency, your gulper at full grease goes from bad to worse if you throttle back and if you throttle back too far, you will never find your way back or realize full power again.
And I think we agree that no one wants run the life out of a turbine or piston engine either for several reasons.
And we both agree there aren't too many airplanes that can afford the weight penalty of carrying a pressurized gas such a propane. Still, for an inexpensive engine, (well maybe not in your case), you can buy a lot of gas for the price of some engines.
So in conclusion, I think we pretty much see eye to eye.
My test for you would be more of an essay.
What were you hoping to achieve by approaching your boss with this project?
Mark

luc
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:05 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Quebec, Canada

Sad Day Today

Post by luc » Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:41 pm

Hi Guys,

It is a sad day today ...
Engine #3, which was our work horse, the one that gave us our first 145 pnds of thrust, has given away a few minutes ago.

I used it one last time to validate some thing on engine #4 and #5 and in that process, he severally cracked his exhaust and deformed to a point where we won't repair it anymore. #3 is now a retired engine.

When that happened ... I felt a pinch in my chest ... I knew that was it and that was the last time we would hear his growling noise.

Remember guys ... The is engine was and still is an historycal engine. It was the first real and only prooven 130 pnds thruster, for the last 47 years and probably a world record breaker, unless otherwise prooven, with his 145 pnds test run. The Gluhareff 130R-IBR #3 pressurejet engine.

For the ones that feel this is and import moment in the Pulsejet / Valveless / Pressure jet engine community, I have include in that message, a few memorable pictures.

I hope this bring back exiting moments memories ...

Regards,

Luc
Attachments
Gluhareff 130R IBR #3.jpg
(211.13 KiB) Downloaded 1127 times
Peak Of Career.JPG
(169.32 KiB) Downloaded 1774 times
130 pnds proof April 7-2004 engine #3.jpg
(179.68 KiB) Downloaded 1085 times
Nose fail 1.jpg
(168.35 KiB) Downloaded 1108 times
CC Deformation 1.JPG
(169.29 KiB) Downloaded 1105 times
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Anthony
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:41 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Quebec City, Canada

Post by Anthony » Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:04 pm

Wow, the "Peak of career" is awesome!

Well, as I would very philosophically (sp?) say, "Shit happens".

Anyway, looking back, you did awesome work on that engine, and it's sad to see it go away like this...

Good luck with future experiments Luc!
Anthony
Image

Tom
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:55 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: UK

Post by Tom » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:54 pm

Although I never contributed to this thread, damn, that hits hard. #4, your memory will live on forever in our hearts. And also, I agree on the peak of career pic. Amazing.

Tom
Experience speaks more then hypothesizing ever can. More-so in chemistry.

Anthony
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:41 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Quebec City, Canada

Post by Anthony » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:56 pm

Coffee wrote:Although I never contributed to this thread, damn, that hits hard. #4, your memory will live on forever in our hearts. And also, I agree on the peak of career pic. Amazing.

Tom
*whistles to the ear during the funerals*#3 man, #3...
Anthony
Image

Tom
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:55 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: UK

Post by Tom » Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:59 pm

Oh now I feel like a prat after pointing out the preview function : oP Sorry to those who I may have offended, I would like to pass the blame onto my new keyboard. It's somewhat smaller then the old one (wireless).

*d'oh*

Tom : o)
Experience speaks more then hypothesizing ever can. More-so in chemistry.

Dave
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 7:03 pm
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Buffalo, NY

Sad Day Today

Post by Dave » Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:06 am

Luc it is sad to see #3 go.
She was the first Pressure Jet I got to experience first hand, but hopefully not my last.
Please give the old girl a pat on the tail pipe for me.
Will what is left of her be kept, or will she go to the great scrap heap...
No way, don’t let that happen!
Dave

Locked