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

Moderator: Mike Everman

Locked
Mike Everman
Posts: 4906
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Fri May 28, 2004 2:22 pm

got it, thanks!
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

Always getting into me ...

Post by luc » Fri May 28, 2004 2:44 pm

Haaaaaa ..... Mannnnn,

There you guys go again ... I guess you guys starts to know me and once you have stong my curiosity ... The rest will go alone.

Damnnnn .... Okey, okey, okey ... You got me curious Mike. I will do it ... I will run the engine at 100 pnds of thrust and open that damn clibrated propane bottle .... Just for you. Patrick and I will do it Monday.

But that will be the only other SFC figure you will have ... He he he ... And take it as a gift from a Canadian to a Canadian.

Damnnnn .... They got me again ... He he he ... Damn spoiled kids.

Cya Guys,

Luc ....................... Out
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mike Everman
Posts: 4906
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Fri May 28, 2004 2:53 pm

Ah, Luc, you're a gentleman and a scholar, and there are damned few of us left!
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

Mid Power SFC

Post by luc » Mon May 31, 2004 4:39 pm

Hi again guys,

Okeyyy ... Mike Baby ... here is your Mid power SFC thing. And again, braught to you by ... Luc the pressure jet man ... He he he.

Again, remember the engine was suplyed with the liquid propane bottle ONLY only when it achieved reasonance and was stable at the lowest possible thrust level the engine could deliver while maintaining reasonance. In this test with this oerticular engine, the figures were 75 ponds of thrust at 135 psig. of propane pressure. Lower then this, the engine would come out of reasonance.

So you see ... Do you guys beleive me now ... When I say ... "Fully Throttleable" is Bullshit .....

Test results :
Test conditions : Static.
Engine Orifice : .078" dia.
Ambient temp. : 68 °F.
Bottle full : 56 pounds.
Engine Thrust : 75 pnds.
Fuel pressure : 135 psig.
Exhaust Temp. : 1844°.
Running Time : 4 minutes 53 seconds.
Bottle empty : 30 pounds even.
Consumption : 26 pounds of liquid propane.

Now :
4 min. 53 sec. = 4.88 (4 x 60 + 53 = 293 sec. / 60 = 4.88)
26 pnds of liquid propane / 4.88 min = 5.33 lbs/min.
5.33 lbs/min. / 75 pnds thrust = .071 lb/lb/min.
.071 lb/lb/min x 60 = 4.26 lb/lb/hr.

So ... There you have it Mike.

Also ... Look at the above line where I say "5.33 lbs/min. / 75 pnds thrust = .071 lb/lb/min." ... This is very close to what we can read in the Gluhareff Manual.

Could it be ... Could it be possible that this indeed was the true fact.
Could it be possible that there was a transcription error in the manual and indeed it was ".078 lb/lb/min." ... Not "Hr".

And if it is so ... Could it be possible that indeed, if the real SFC figure .078/lb/lb/min, instead of "Hr", would clearlly demonstrate that Eugene 130R never worked also ... I am telling you.... When I calculated that number ".071/lb/lb/min. I started to be suspicious.

But wi will never know ....

So... As you can see Mike.... The engine is not cheaper at lower rate. Your simply starving what the acoustic need (Explosion Power) to deliver maximum thrust.

See .... How nice I am for you... you cry baby Mike .... he he he.

Here .... You have your numbers now ...

Cya Budy

Luc .........................Out
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mike Everman
Posts: 4906
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:25 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: santa barbara, CA
Contact:

Post by Mike Everman » Mon May 31, 2004 5:53 pm

Waaaaa haaaaa haaaaa! Snif. Waaaaaa haaaaa haaaaa! Thanks, Luc! I think that was important. Certainly most of us would have suspected less thrust to equal less sfc. You are slaying the misconceptions, man.

Verrrry narrow power band. Like the early radial piston engines, full on or full off. At least you could turn them on and off in flight!
Mike
__________________________
Follow my technical science blog at: http://mikeeverman.com/
Get alerts for the above on twitter at: http://twitter.com/mikeeverman

Mark
Posts: 10727
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by Mark » Mon May 31, 2004 9:21 pm

For the record then, what does that work out to in pounds of fuel per hour for the 75 pounds of thrust? How many gallons would I burn in an hour running at the 75 pounds of thrust? How does that compare to a prop plane?
Mark

Bruno Ogorelec
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:31 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Post by Bruno Ogorelec » Mon May 31, 2004 9:27 pm

Mark wrote:How does that compare to a prop plane?
Mark
Very, very badly.

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

Post by Anthony » Mon May 31, 2004 9:31 pm

Props drink almost as much as your car for a given horsepower.

Jets, of any kind, drink like an alchoolic. Fuel efficient is always relative hehe.
Anthony
Image

decook1110
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 6:56 am
Antipspambot question: 0
Location: Detroit, MI

More on SFC

Post by decook1110 » Tue Jun 01, 2004 9:47 am

Straight turbo jets run SFC's a little over 1
Big super effient and expensive turbo fans have hit .4
Williams FJ44 is around .5

3.1 and 4.3 are really bad Take your range and cut it to around 1/6. Multply your fuel costs by 6. Propane is more bulky than petrol and has to be in a pressure vessel (no cheap wet wings)

Viv
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
Contact:

Post by Viv » Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:35 pm

"Could it be possible that there was a transcription error in the manual and indeed it was ".078 lb/lb/min." ... Not "Hr"."

Well i think you are right in that assumption unless some one with other information can prove it wrong?

But its fare to say that some pretty big errors were made by the varios people who ripped of Eugene's work and designs and transcribed his notes for their own gain.

Now with some numbers in the hat how does the big Gluey compare to a Lockwood? we know that a big Locky will empty a gas bottle in five minutes flat so any body got some Locky numbers to hand?

Viv
"Sometimes the lies you tell are less frightening than the loneliness you might feel if you stopped telling them" Brock Clarke

Viv's blog

Monsieur le commentaire

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

Gallons and $ numbers

Post by luc » Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:25 pm

Hi guys,

Mark asked :
For the record then, what does that work out to in pounds of fuel per hour for the 75 pounds of thrust? How many gallons would I burn in an hour running at the 75 pounds of thrust? How does that compare to a prop plane?
Okey Mark ... here are the numbers for you, and numbers that might discourage you in flying with that thing... Hé hé hé.

Numbers and $ at 130 pnds of thrust

1 gallon = 5.1 pounds Liquid Propane at 60°F
26 pounds = 5.09 gallons in 3:51 min. Heewwww ... Ungry beast.
26 pounds = 50.9 liters (1 liter = .51 pnd. Liquid propane @ 60°F)
So ... 50.9 liters in 3:51 min = 14.5 liter/min. @ $.40 a liter = $5.80 per min. or $348.00 an hour.

And it get even worst with the engine at mid throttle.

Okey ... Let me explain why aircraft company size the engine that will go on a specific aircraft. Many peoples think that when a company like Bombardier, advertise their CL-215 wather Bombers, all those bombers come with the same engine type ... Well this is false. Now, follow me on this one. When an aircraft is designed, it is so this aircraft can be equipped with a wide range of engines, and here is why.

Exemple ... A CL-215 can be provided with Pratt & Withney PW-120, PW-124 and PW-127. And here is why :

PW-120, the "20" at the end stand for 2000 Shaft Hp. @ 70°F. @ 100% throttle.
PW-124, stand for 2400 Shaft Hp. @ 70°F. @ 100% throttle.
PW-127, stand for 2700 Shaft Hp. @ 70°F. @ 100% throttle.

So, if a CL-215 really need 4000 Hp. to fly fully loaded, when they will sell planes that will work in an area where the average ambient temp. is 70°F. They wont put 2 PW-1200 on that plane. Because those engines will mostly have to be at 100% throttle, will have very poor SFC and will wear very fast. They will put PW-124, so the aircraft will sustain flight at around 80% throttle, fully loaded and still have good SFC.

Now ... here is my quiz question for you Brainiac... Now, if Bombardier sell 20 planes to the California state gouverment and where the everage ambient temperature is 90°F ... What engine will they put on that plane? ... PW-120, 124 or 127????

Now, with the pressure jet, it is the opposite. This engine need the 100% throttle to get better SFC. Lower the throttle, lower the SFC. So, in a world where fuel economy, engine durability and Quiet, are big words ... You now see why the pressurejet has no futur.

Now ... Try answering my quiz question and see if you did get my explanation.

Hoooo ... By the way ... With turbofans, turbine and turboprops ... Cooler is always better.

Good luck ...

Luc ................. Out
Luc
Designer & Inventor

milisavljevic
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:36 am
Antipspambot question: 125

Post by milisavljevic » Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:53 pm

DELETED.
Last edited by milisavljevic on Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Viv
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:35 pm
Antipspambot question: 125
Location: Normandy, France, Wales, Europe
Contact:

Post by Viv » Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:08 pm

well with those figures it is not so much not in the same ballpark but more like a nearby field, well as long as you don't mind a long walk that is:-)

Viv
"Sometimes the lies you tell are less frightening than the loneliness you might feel if you stopped telling them" Brock Clarke

Viv's blog

Monsieur le commentaire

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

Oupsssss

Post by luc » Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:33 am

Goodmorning Classsss ... He he he.

So ....who answered the quiz .... WHATttttttttt???????????????.

No one Didddddddd ... So I guess NO one understood what I tried to explain.

Wellll ... I guess I will have to start ALL OVER ... Againe ... He he he.

I was joking. But still, I am surprised that no one could find it, or tried, at least.

Anyway ... As you wish ...

Cya guys.

Luc .............. Out
Luc
Designer & Inventor

Mark
Posts: 10727
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:14 pm

Post by Mark » Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:12 pm

I would have guessed the corporation would have sold the engine with the most profit. ; )
Thanks for the informative expose' Luc, it seemed to have that nice ring of truth.
Mark

Locked