| Author | Message | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: |
Looking for some short cuts for Ram Air adaptions to NA 8/71 and wondered if there might not be some easily transferable existing technology to plagiarize from the aircraft industry (yes I know that the dynamics calculatedly change with "ambient speed". What has been the progression in the methods/designs use to pressurize the cabins in high altitude aircraft? In particular did any of them birds employ ram air methods to produce that low pressure/high volume required in early passenger liners or have they always relied on expensive compressors to pressurize the cabin? Any other hard facts on raising the D.D. volumetric ratio (more air than just N.A. and the dangers of higher heat loads, leaner mixture at full fuel, modified timing/efficiency requirements are most welcome to chime in here to? | ||
| Jon W. Rating: N/A |
In my plane (piston powered) there is a pressure venturi on the upper deck of the turbocharger system immediately ahead of the intake system. That supplies the low pressure but high volume air to pressurize the cabin. As you point out correctly, if you make any changes to the intake air volume you need to make corresponding changes to the fuel flow to the cylinders. Again using current piston aircraft technology (actually it is old technology but back in vogue) you may end up delivering more air than fuel (current fuel flow) and end up running the engine lean of peak. An interesting discussion here is can diesels run LOP or are they running rich of peak, and if so how far from peak EGT? Under heavy load my old turbo charged 8V92 would show about 1100 degrees on the pyros. | ||
| Dallas Farnworth (Dal300)
Rating: N/A |
TH, Go to your local Injector/Blower rebuilder and ask about a 'Smoke' turbo. I think they run about 5lbs. constant pressure, not enought to really increase power, but should stop smoke, allow high altitude/nosmoke/lowaltitude/betterfuelmileage. Cleaner running over all. Also doesn't require the rebuild/overhaul/compression reduction a normal T or TA or TTA would. Just my thought. Dallas | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
Good thought DF, that is my one of my objectives, but was trying to find a more economically justifiable path to hit the target. Like a variable venturi ram air intake as opposed to the simple aftermarket air scoups that ended up on a lot of those cummins powered rigs back in the late 70's. and I do agree with JW that it is just asking for a meltdown to do such modes without adding a relatively inexpensive promoter as a tell all. My experience is more on petrol power, but is it correct to assume that belching smoke on on full throttle (not lugging) is a overly rich condition, which lowers potential combustion chamber peak temp. | ||
| Dallas Farnworth (Dal300)
Rating: N/A |
TH, The smoke condition you speak of could be as simple as the previous own wanting lots of power, but knowing how to get it. Cosequently, he'd heard of installing big injectors to make HP. With injectors, Bigger isn't always better. Another problem could be a tired engine, or the wrong type oil,(non CF-2), timing wrong for the injectors, a stuck rack, injector or bad tuneup. Before looking at esoteric changes, such as Air intake modifications, find out what the engine is really telling you. Pull the airbox covers and inspect the rings, airbox and piston. Have an oil analysis done. at less than $30 a real steal to see whats with your engine. Run the rack and see if you can clean it up that way. Change the oil, YOURSELF!!!!! Make sure you use an API rated CF-2 40wt. motor oil, non sythetic, single grade. Truck stops and shops are famous for using whatever is handy that they have in bulk but charging you for the other stuff. Check the air filters. If you still have the oil bath type, clean 'em and put in 30wt. These are just a few tips. I hope they help. BTB, since the 8V71 uses a Rootes type supercharger/blower, putting a air scoop on probably won't do much good. Dallas PD4103-1085 http://www.busconversionstuff.com/eventpage.htm | ||
| Geoff (Geoff)
Rating: N/A |
Perhaps a simpler solution would be to take advantage of some of the unused energy that is constantly available from the driver-- you guessed it, a methane gas recovery and injection system from the driver to the engine. With careful planning one could use the system to get up the steepest grades-- i.e. a stop for chili an hour or two before a rigorous grade would supply enough methane to fly up the hill in the next higher gear while reducing wind drag by not having to have the windows open. I'll name this system the "flatu-boost" and hereby declare my intent to copyright the system. --Geoff | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
The theoretical problem is not so much those extra few % of fuel that wasn't turned into power but; rather the problem I am attempting to cost effectively address, it is rather flatulence related, so you be rather close. I am thinking more along the lines reducing the trolling for "pollution pigs" attribute that is seems to be built into any 8v71 that is inject beyond #55 caliber's. Perhaps this concern is limited to a just the "few jurisdiction I have heard" second and third hand reports about such "roadside enforcement going beyond the prototype stages to date", were there exist scheduled emission testing on commercial vehicles "such as Lower West Coast BC, California and around the 401 in Metropolis Ontario" and a translation of the enacted legislation into procedural road side spot checks. I do see the growth revenue generating trend soon to reach a neighbourhood that I may frequent. Just picture that pimply face young DOT enforcement officers getting a woody for his Browne point quota's when he pulls up behind those old Jimmies powered conversions belching clouds out the tail pipe as it climbs those grades, could one realistically expect them to pass on a easy ticket for there road side smog testing enforcement program which is dedicated toward such possible targets. Might as well drive around with your tail lights smashed out. I will be happy to take a look at your impending contraption and consider it's application Gff, as long as you keep the gas genertor under raps till the patent is granted & after you have the kinks worked out in your prototype. It couldn't be any lamer than the "sugar battery" idea an old friend had been trying to get me to consider many times a few decades back. Some times it is just the act of creating with your imagination that makes it worth the effort, even if the applications doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Ideas are free & constructive at least until you bother going to patent them! | ||
| Bob Wies (Ncbob)
Rating: N/A |
I'm laughing so hard I'm afraid I'll p-- my knickers. The truth of the matter is with the the N/A 8V71 the best you can hope for is: Advanced timing and injector (I use N65's or, ya want smoke..75's) should give you all the power that darlin' will put out on a floor dyno...318 HP. Being that the engine is N/A (normally aspirated) there is no pressure in the airbox above ambient. The higher you go ....the lower it is. Get over it! The Roots blower is NOT a supercharger. It's job is to scavange the burned gasses out of the cylinder and allow fresh 02 air to enter before the next power stroke at atmospheric pressure. Wanna try O2 or LP injection? It'll be a helluva ride for a short period of time. But..... not on my bus.... thank you! Run what ya brung and either be happy with it or make a change. Dance with the lady you brought to the dance! That's my way...... NCbob | ||
| Bob Wies (Ncbob)
Rating: N/A |
Hi Jonw....please show me a way I can lean my 8V71 lean from peak..when I'm above 3-4000 MSL without burning the tops off the pistons. We deal with different engines and totally different (searching for a synonym) technologies in our planes than we do with busses (and wives). That's my was.... NCbob | ||
| Dan West (Utahclaimjumper)
Rating: N/A |
Bob W., don't knock LP injection till you try it. I've had mine for 6 years and still running strong. I live at 5600 ft,(thats a reduction of 18% before turning the key!!) 8V71 A timed, N65 and LP injection, works for me..>>>Dan | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
To respond to the original question, Ram Air, in an attempt to improve volumetric efficiency (more air to cylinders) is a losing proposition. Creates more drag than recovers in energy. Porting, radiusing and polishing, if you understand the dynamics of Reynolds Numbers and fluid dynamics through tubes will get you the most bang for your buck. | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
Say claimjumper, I like to here more about your propane injection. Do you find "the catalysis effect" reduces the smoke on wide open throttle at altitude on your 318? What kind of volume do you introduce and where is your injection point? You are the first I have heard that is doing it on a jimmie. | ||
| motorcoach1 Rating: N/A |
Marks right ,if it ain't breathing it ain't horsen and in a 2 stroker thats hard to get.mmm gee does that piston really weigh 26 Lb's | ||
| FAST FRED Rating: N/A |
"The Roots blower is NOT a supercharger." Any pump that gives a positive pressure to the engine intake IS a supercharger. That most of the pressure is used to help the exhaust leave does not change the terms. From what I read A DD will have between 2 and 6 lbs of supercharger boost in normal operation. Folks that worry about the smog police only need to realize there are 3 or 4 different STYLE injectors avilable for the DD. White tag , green tag ect. are avilable from knowledgable sources that can help the smoke a lot. FAST FRED | ||
| Dallas Farnworth (Dal300)
Rating: N/A |
I believe Fred is correct and will take it a little farther even Anything that forces more air into an engine than is supplied by atmospheric pressure is a form of supercharger, meaning that even a hood scoop is a supercharger, as it forces more air into the air intake the faster the engine moves forward, allowing more fuel to be fed to the engine while still maintaining a useable air/fuel mixture. Here are a few definitions I found on Google: # a crank-driven air/fuel-mixture compressor, also called a blower. It increases atmospheric pressure in the engine to produce more horsepower. www.nhra.com/basics/glossary.html # A mechanically driven turbine/compressor used to deliver above atmospheric pressure air to the inlet manifold. www.caltex.com.au/products_glo.asp # A compressor device to compress the combustion air or the air/fuel mixture before it enters the engine cylinder. Superchargers are typically driven by the engine itself, through a system of gears, a belt drive, or by an electrical motor. www.dieselnet.com/gl-s.html # Supercharging is the compression of an engine's intake charge above atmospheric pressure by means of an air pump driven by a crankshaft. This is not to be confused with a turbocharger which is an air pump that is exhaust driven. A supercharger can provide boost faster than a turbo and over a much broader engine rpm range. The disadvantages of supercharging are higher power demands, more mechanical noise and more complex control requirements. www.cdnauto.org/glossary/s.asp # A device which forces a greater weight of charge into the combustion chamber of an aero-engine than would be taken in by normal induction, particularly in reduced atmospheric pressure at great heights. www.aeroplanemonthly.com/glossary/glossary_S.htm From Wikipedia: The Roots type supercharger or Roots blower is a positive displacement type device that operates by pulling air through a pair of meshing lobes not dissimilar to a set of stretched gears. Air is trapped in pockets between the lobes and carried between the intake side to the exhaust. The supercharger is typically driven directly from the engine's crankshaft via a belt. In order for most typical Roots superchargers to deliver air at greater pressure than atmospheric, they should be geared so that they turn faster than the engine. It is named for the brothers Philander and Francis Roots, who first patented the basic design in 1860 as an air pump for use in blast furnaces and other industrial applications. In 1900, Gottlieb Daimler included a Roots-style supercharger in a patented engine design, making the Roots-type supercharger the oldest of the various designs now available. Out of the three basic supercharger types the Roots is considered the least efficient. However, it is simple and widely used and thus is invariably the most cost efficient. It is also more effective than alternative superchargers at developing compression at low engine rpms, making it a popular choice for passenger automobile applications. Peak boost can be achieved by about 2000 rpm. Much work has been done to improve the efficiency of the Roots type supercharger, but because it does not have internal compression (the design can be classified as just a "blower") it will never have the same potential as the twin-screw type supercharger, or the centrifugal type supercharger. All supercharger types benefit from the use of an intercooler to remove heat produced during compression. The Roots design is commonly used on two-stroke diesel engines, which require some form of forced induction since there is no intake stroke. In this application, the blower does not often provide significant compression and these engines are considered naturally aspirated; turbochargers are generally used when significant boost is needed. [edit] References: * (April 5, 2002). Roots Type Superchargers Explained. SuperchargersOnline.com. Accessed September 11, 2004. * Blower Briefing. Tom Henry Racing. Accessed September 11, 2004. | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
Dallas, I repeatmy comment on Ram Air. As to overcoming (rather than) removing internal airflow resistance. Yes it can be overcome by brute force via supercharging, but that increases the intake temp, reducing air density and deny a significant portion of the benefit. Intercooler's help but wasting energy is a waste of energy. I've "ported" both diesels and gas engines. With a 6.2 diesel I achived a 4 mpg (yes, four) increase over average. The 6.2 wasn't dynoed but after the overhaul, the tranny went kaput far from home. At the Tranny shop it seemed every mechanic was taking turns "test driving" my 4WD pick-up. I asked one of the guys when he came back why so many test drives. Not knowing I was the owner, he "gushed" "We've never seen a diesel that will spin all four tires from a stop!" They were out getting about 20' of scratch on my nickle! With the gas engine,454 Chevy, Simple and proper part selection of block and heads(stock parts) will gain you about a 33% increase (from a dyno) in both Torque and Horsepower over stock, mainly through airflow benefits and an increase in mileage from 7.5 to 9.3 mpg. A friend of mine is a professional "porter" He does heads for the tractor pull and truck racing guys. The DD 2 strokes are supposed to usually be "pretty good" but most all can benefit from some attention, if you're "particular". I'm not bothering with this on my 8V92 if that's an indication. | ||
| Dallas Farnworth (Dal300)
Rating: N/A |
Marc, I totally agree that porting and polishing have a significant influence on 'breathability'. When I was a young'n back in the '60's and '70's we'd always port and polish whatever we were working on. I only found one engine that didn't show a performance or fuel mileage increase. That was the almost bullet proof 352 Ford motor. Mine was in a '631/2 Galaxy wagon, and even after rebuild, balancing, porting, polishing, dual point Mallory ignition, flex fan, carb overhaul, carb replacement, cam replacement, headers, exhaust system, offenhauser intake, etc., it achieved a total of 15 mpg. Before any of the, (Expensive), work was done, it got, as you may have guessed, 15 mpg. Years later, I was told those motors were over ported and not a whole lot would help besides turning them into 390's. But I have to admit, that motor WAS tough, I put over 333,000 miles on it before I sold it. I pulled a 25' camp trailer with it and also used it as an escort car for our trailer house toter. Dallas | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
Dallas (Tongue in cheek!) Those of us alive now, back in the 60s- 70s, very obviously were "YOUNG'Ns" (Wish we still were!) | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
MB $" M.I.B. looked into this particular garage phenomenium you had experienced; while the Investigation Bureau found that there was a significant reduction in induction plenum restriction done on your GM boat anchor, (a effect one M.I.B. agent likened to the "Ram Air" effect of increased air flow potential at "higher vehicle velocities" only always in effect, proportionally to the engine R.P.M. and ambient temperature. This effect was deemed not as cost effective in Diesel engines as in petrol powered reciprocating internal combustion engines as there was little improvement in fuel atomization to be gained with GM boat anchor diesel injection, unlike the case with carburated petrol compound atomization . Upon further individual interrogation of "this disturbance to the force" it was determined the offending mechanics, starting with the newly inducted floor sweeping apprentice, it was concluded that there repeated and seemingly irrational propensity to test drive your vehicle was a subconsciousness attempt to burn off the transmission oil that had permeated the tires, though the motive seem to be subliminally induced . The induction of such detailed and compulsive subliminally motivated behaviour remained undetermined until the conclusion of this report at 9.58 hrs. EST April 08.2006, being that none of the attendees at that shop seem inclined to such induction of though, though several were in fact that detail oriented."$ up up and away for the rest of the day my friend , and thank you for noticing the quotations | ||
| Dallas Farnworth (Dal300)
Rating: N/A |
Marc, You need to remove the tongue from the cheek, or, when you bite down you are really gonna say, "dthammit". just my 0.011£ Or 0.016€ Dallas | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
Nah he is just fine the way he is, as we all are! Better to find a better way to profit from his "love of the truth" (details) and look inwards on the rest. Have you ever experienced the levels of empathy amongst an institution for the mute. To be tongueless would only widen the gap, and further imped the flow of knowledge with feelings! | ||
| David Hartley (Drdave)
Rating: N/A |
I went to an auction today and I was tempted to bid on a pallet of stuff.. Like 3 brand new Turbodyne Electric TurboChargers with the controllers, cables and all the hookup pipes. I was tempted but lax in the fact that I would have had to take 2 trailer loads of crap along with the good stuff. I didn't realize my wait for a fork lift to load out was going to take so long and I would have had time to go back and bid on that stuff.. Oh.. Well.. I already had 2 gas turbine engine/generators loaded and no room for much else. My van has a crappy and way underpowered 300 cu inch 6 cylinder and it was to the floor to maintain 65 mph for the 125 miles each way. I guess I did OK, I went specifically to buy the turbines and that's exactly what I came home with. That itself is very rare.. I usually have 3 tons of junk to haul off to recycling.... Dave..... | ||
| Frank Mooney Rating: N/A |
Propane Injection...its almost a free lunch. Less then a hundred bucks if you do it yourself 10% better milage Fewer oil changes Extends the life of the engine Lowers the exhaust temps Kick in the ass when turning on Drasticly reduces emissions Dan West is right on with this propane system...I myself use it. | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
Is it conspiracy theory day? Like the Platinum screens in the intake tract? Oil companies are supressing them to sell more oil? [Why, when all they have to do to make more profit is shut down a refinery or two!] If propane injection was "almost a free lunch" don't you think the trucking industry would generally make use of it? This was thoroughly discussed in archived threads and the conclusion was the net result is it's practical only when you have a specific purpose and limited need for extra HP which is easier to address by an inefficient "fix" rather than a properly engineered power package. What was pointed out, unless you significantly increase the airflow through the engine, the propane is going to out-compete the diesel for oxygen. More than likely, the propane, being gaseous, will achieve stoicheometric ratios and burn fully, leaving a significant portion of the "air starved" diesel to combust in the exhaust due to the scavenged air. I'm not dissing the fact that you can generate more HP using propane. I'm advancing the position that it isnt' efficient or practical. All that being said, the only difference between men and boys being the price of their toys - you can spend or waste your money as you choose. [No, that's not a sarcastic comment! When you look at brake specific fuel consumption (bsfc) curves and understand that propane contains less energy per unit measure than diesel, it just is hard to understand how your claims "pencil out"] I have an open mind on this. I'm willing to listen. Do you have data, like from "back to back" Dyno runs, so the actual performance can be evaluated? Onward and Upward | ||
| Jack Conrad (Jackconrad)
Rating: N/A |
Dr. Dave, Tell me more about these gas turbine engines. You can email me off line if you want. Jack | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Marc had it right with ram air. My '00 firebird WS/6 has ram air. It looks nice, but the power is gained by the improvement of other components the factory they did. One day, while tinkering, I found that they had pretty much blocked off the ram air system, making it worthless, except for cool air induction. I happened to be putting in gauges, including a vaccum/boost gauge. I did that one, because I thought one day I may put a supercharger on. I drilled out the rivets that held in the factory installed baffles, and there was absolutely no change in the pressure, even at over 100mph. Most automobile ramair only accomplishes getting cool air to the engine, rather than the hot engine compartment air. The biggest increases in power that I've found in that car have been from improving the airflow by replacing restrictive parts. There were quite a few on the stock car, even though this was the special edition car with much more power than the regular firebird. It is a little bit louder at WOT now, but that's it. Some people suggested that the baffles were required to keep rain water from getting into the intake, but I've driven it quite a bit in the rain with no ill effects. If you want more power, improve any restrictive components. I didn't notice any straight off when I looked my RTS over, but then again, I didn't check every piece over carefully enough. I know propane injection works on gas motors. I don't know how it works with diesel. The reason manufacturers don't put it on stock vehicles is that it's an extra component, and it's dangerous. Danger factor is usually overcome by anyone willing to put it on. It's still an extra tank to fill, which is the biggest drawback. I had the same problem with NOS. I ran it for a very short while. At $45 to fill a 15 pound bottle, and being able to empty the bottle in a short time of hauling ass on the road, it really wasn't worth it. I've been happier with improved airflow components. And for those that don't know, airflow is everything from where the air comes in, to where the exhaust goes out. Restrictive air filters, ducts, sensors, throttle body and exhausts are the first to fix on a car, followed by heads and manifolds. Once you fix the airflow, you can start working on the fuel flow. It's a never ending cycle on cars. There's always something you can upgrade, if your wallet can support it. After fuel flow, you upgrade the ignition, then the frame and suspension, then the driveline, then, then, then... Oh ya, then you try to figure out why your wife left you, because you were always buying stuff for the car and not her.  I don't know what kind of aftermarket parts are available for buses, but I don't suspect too many people are racing them. I have read, which I'm sure someone on here can confirm, that just changing the injectors can dramatically increase performance, which indicates to me that airflow is not an issue on buses. They're lacking fuel flow. | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
DR.D are those APU from aircraft. I had noticed that there are transmission kits to use some models of those single stage turbines on light helicopters (saw a few mountings on "executives" brands light class that apparently had "airworthiness certification" I wounder if one couldn't adapt the same proven driveline to the ultra light weight class (mosquito, baby bells etc.) and bypass the need for airworthiness all together. Way to score, can I become your best buddy if you should loss interest in "our kind of junk" at some point? Back to the other off topic but more related point, I have only a vague familiarity to date on the CATALIZING effect's of propane and natural gas on diesels , but I would think that a good source of meaningful combustion hard research may be found when I find some study time with some of the large transit fleets that have been prototyping with a mix of CNG and diesel at the same time (not likely to find Jimmie prototypes, but combustion dynamics are not so different when it comes to the catalizing influences I would guess) | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
I just did some searching around on Google, and the general answer is, don't bother on a DD, unless you've already done serious modifications, and are dumping in too much gas. Even then, there's better ways to spend your money, rather than wasting it on the propane system. Damn, I closed half the windows that had interesting information in them, and then closed this one once. Well, here's a couple links. http://www.dieselinfo.com/tech_propane.cfm http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:EtWrhE-RaJwJ:www.busnut.com/bbs/messages/11/8488.html% 3F1102772100+%22propane+injection%22+diesel+6v92&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: |
Truth Hunter, I don't know what the Canadian laws are, but American FAA rules are: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b85ef82573fe7c2ccfed59e6c3e7ffad& rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.16.1.9.1 (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and (4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed. You'll find that you lose a lot of weight capacity very quickly. I dare say, a gas turbine may want more than 5 gallons of fuel, and even if it could run for a while, you may be providing a design spec for more than 55 knots. I suspect by the "turbine/generator" description, that these weren't set up to make thrust, they were made to spin a generator. I have seen small turbines, that put out like 1,000hp that could be used. They weren't made to put out thrust, but they were easily adapted to spin a propeller. The one I'm thinking of was used to power a speed boat. It was roughly 2 feet long, and sat transverse as an inboard, spinning the propeller through a reduction gear set. There's one for sale on eBay now. Auction # 7606040195 http://cgi.ebay.com/Lucas-Aerospace-Generator-200V-400Hz-12-5kW-Gas-Turbine_W0QQitemZ76060 40195QQcategoryZ58189QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem And, to be on BusNut type topics, I'd suggest not running one in a campground, or you won't have many friends. | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
I promise, this is the last post on the subject. I have to go put up a fence so the dog will stop showing up in nieghbor's houses. Here's two folks who did put a small turbine on other craft. The first two links are an ultralight. The third is a jet powered boat (airboat style). In both cases, they're set up as turboprops. http://pfranc.com/projects/my_cp.htm http://pfranc.com/projects/turbine/rotax/rotax.htm http://www.validate.net/turbine/ | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
About 6.7 light years off topic, but hey not only can't I resist , but don't blame me as I'm just following others (or at least that is my claim and the thread is to long to look back and check)on this off topic and I don't remember bringing it up first. Besides a compact mini helicopter is a integral part of "my way" design (might need to do some pathfindering some times to scout good boon-docking bases as well as roadway accessibility). Here is some existing light helicopter modifications , haven't found a turbined ultra light helicopter "mod" yet other than the one in my own imagination. Short hops are all that is required for my intent , and then back to the toad for long trips (I don't like sleeping out of my own bed, so never intend to venture far without your home. No opening the link http://www.stittind.com/ it until the dog fence is up JWS as dog safety always comes first and can never wait. | ||
| David Hartley (Drdave)
Rating: N/A |
What I got were a couple of MEP362A gensets, The generator section turns at 12,000 rpm and is rated at 12kw. or 28 volts @357 amps d.c. These were INOP units, missing the ECU and GENECU controllers. I have pulled one engine and found that both engines have bad bearings and will need to be rebuilt. Ratings vary from 30 bhp to 75 shaft hp @ 50,000 rpm ( 12,000 rpm gearbox ). The trailer housings look very interesting to place a small diesel generator inside, has a 32 gallon tank, fuel pumps and lots of soundproofing in a small package. I looked that that because they could actually be trimmed down to slide into a bay !! As for fuel economy.. NOT! 8 gallons per hour... but will run Jet-A, JP4, JP5, JP8 and diesel (no less! ) I am thinking WVO powered Jet Generator set.. ( Ha....)... | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Ok, 75' of the fence is done, I'm taking a break. David, You forgot the important part, they look cool. I found this link with them. http://cgi.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=583319 Truth Hunter, have you ever flown a helicopter? It's not as easy as one may think. I've flown small planes before, and know better than to think that I could fly a helicopter. I could probably get it off the ground, and *MAYBE* hover in some vauge fashion. Try Microsoft Flight Simulator sometimes. Their controls are fairly accurate for the planes I've flown, so I assume they're accurate for the helicopter. I found myself flying backwards an awful lot. A better choice in recon vehicles would be an RC helicopter or airplane with onboard cameras. I bought an "E-Flight Blade CP" for practice, before I spent several hundred bucks on a good one. It has all the controls, but is very small compared to it's bigger brothers. I flew the simulators very successfully, so I figured I could take the real thing out in the yard and give it a shot. It took about 8 seconds before it hit the neighbors house. There was no significant damage, so I put it back in the yard, and gave it another shot. I managed to miss crashing it into their roof, and landed it very ungracefully into some bushes. I then decided to take it a bit easier, and just went for hovering 1" from the ground. I didn't do too bad outside, but then it started getting dark. I brought it back inside, and recharged the batteries. I hovered it in my living room with several failed landings. I ended up destroying the main rotor and a landing strut hitting a chair a few times. Luckly, the main rotor is plastic covered balsa wood, and it's replaceable fairly cheaply. Spending several thousand dollars on a real helicopter and killing myself in the process is a bit more expensive. In comparison, I can fly a RC airplane like a pro. I can fly a real airplane like ... well ... a private pilot. I'm still not great at at when to rotate, but it's fun to fly in ground effect down the runway to build up speed. I plan on building a gasoline powered UAV eventually. It'll be powered by a gokart engine (13hp gas motor w/ electric start), and have a significant wingspan. It'll be autonomous by several onboard gumstick-type computers, with basic navigational abilities, and remote telemetry. That's a several thousand dollar project, but it would give me eyes as far away as I'd like. The engine will sit inside the ducted fan housing, which will be insulated on the outside with fiberglass covered aluminum. The fiberglass is to reduce the radar signature from the engine and electronics. The engine inside the ducted fan will cool the engine dramatically, and reduce it's heat signature to almost nothing. The wings will be plexiglass to reduce the ground visibility, and hopefully further reduce it's radar signature. Unless someone is actually looking directly at it, any equipment should show it to be a moderately large bird or group of birds. The speed, size, and temperature would all resemble that. I joke about one of the first destinations to be a 500 foot flyby of Groom Lake. http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/groom.htm It'll be in radio silence for 100 miles from the airbase. Any radio transmitter or receiver except for GPS will be completely disabled at this point. At 25 miles, all cameras will start recording. It will follow GPS waypoints as far as possible, but if it should lose the GPS signal (i.e., GPS blocking), it will go on 'gut instinct' flying. That is, it already knows what straight and level is. It also knows it's own airspeed, and winds that it's been encountering up until GPS signal loss. It's flight plan already has required altitutes accounted for, so it shouldn't crash into anything obvious, like a mountain. At 25 miles beyond the target, cameras will stop recording. At 100 miles beyond the target, the radios will come back online. 3G cell, any available wireless, etc, etc will become active, and it will start uploading the recorded video and stills to an anonymous offshore web server over an encrypted channel. Should, at any point, a concensus of the primary onboard computers indicate that a fatal error has occured, such as entering an uncontrolled state, a small onboard fire will start, melting the flash cards where any identifying data would be stored. The fuel onboard would facilitate this very easily. Impossible? I'm a programmer, and computer guru, and have some experience with everything involved, just not all together like this. It's far from impossible. Another project has all my money going towards it, so this wouldn't be done anytime soon. The overall idea is an inexpensive knockoff of the Global Hawk, except with a different body design, more work done towards concealment, without the requirement of human control, and without the payload capacity and satellite uplinks. | ||
| Marc Bourget Rating: N/A |
JW, I have a relative that was up in the command structure at Nellis. You sorely underestimate the detection systems installed at Groom Lake. They take the place pretty seriously. If you like freedom, I'd consider another challenge. I can agree with your assessment respecting helicopters, as I have a Commercial License with SEL, Instrument and Rotorcraft ratings. It's the transitions in helos that will bite you, quickly and hard. All this from a kid, who at age 5, couldn't rub his belly and pat his head at the same time! LOL!! | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Marc, Since I've said that it would be a fun attempt, and I've said it publically more than once, there's no way I could ever do it. If it ever happened, and they could point anything towards me, that would be my damning evidence. I prefer to play security games with willing participants. I've done a LOT of IT security over the years. It's gotten to the point that I can't play with anyone else, because I (almost) always win. I still do plan on building the airplane someday. It'd be used for more legitimate purposes. Well, and maybe some that people wouldn't agree with. I could probably (hopefully?) easily sell reproduction rights to the military, and if that didn't work, get with someone willing to sell them commercially. If I had the option, I think I'd prefer to go to work out there, with the full understanding that officially all I did was wash windows, and all I saw was nondescript desert. It's amazing how dumb I can get, if people want to know things. Sometimes I'll even forget what my own name is. I wouldn't need the return ticket to Vegas, they could just keep me locked away working with their toys that don't exist. I can only hope 1/100th of what people believe is out there really is. I don't suppose there are many GS positions available. My resume is available. | ||
| truthhunter@shaw.ca Rating: N/A |
Think (all you potential terrorists please cover your eyes hear)*#@~ oh crap, be right back- I just let go of the string on my balloon and the wind took it away; just a minuet I'll try to shoot it down before I lose all my cheap surveillance camera equipment strapped to the bottom- be right back fellow bus enthusiast. OK back. Yes were was I , I was working on a stealthy and cheap system of UAV for some wildlife observations, I used a cheap off the shelf unobtainium free dirigible design complete with ballast and direction control systems to influence the down wind glide path . The objective was not to influence the subjects as they were very sensitive to many kind of disturbance from infra sound, right threw the full spectrum of light (radio waves, magnetic ,light & heat visible to infra). If they were influenced by the observation process the conclusions would be invalid and my scientific ethics would of been breached. So yes I have considered UAV low tech as a expendable option to path finding and enhanced observational procedures. Of course it is convenient to negate such memories when one is anticipating the thrill of first hand observations in unrestricted airspace to justify learning how to fly or die in a helicopter (try to try most things once in the name of all you can beeeee). In the ideal mobile observation/habitat/exploration unit there would be ample room compact many modes of auxiliary pathfinder tools, even one of those flying hover-bikes like the Simpson kid thought they were getting if they would just abandoned there allegiance to "the leader" and the ultra light mosquito helicopter and the above for-mentioned expendable UAV. $ Groom Lake is little more than a TAX SHOW since the change in nuc testing procedure last time I looked, more profitable of a scam than those old "special" $500 11/16 wrenches they use to use to adjust the seats on the BUFFs and not as conspicuous as the old "build a pyramid" or build a magnesium mining nodule ship. Beside if you let the public into that waist basin of a nuc pit , you clean-up cost would raise such a tide of liability sewage for the contractors the were negligent in getting rich on the nuc test that , well there would be a need to double the tax rate to keep the current Military Industrial Complex building those vital "birdhouse" that your grandchildren will be paying for. So have a look if you want , just don't break any law doing it as there are better truths to be observed & imagined than that environmental disaster called AREA 51.$ Hey DR.D have you ever wondered about running a multi fueled turbine on "wood smoke" if flying ain't your cup of tea. | ||
| JW Smythe (Jwsmythe)
Rating: N/A |
Truth Hunter, There are provisions on flying aircraft, including ultralights. You can't fly within 1000 feet of a building or person. So, if you're taking off or landing, you have to be well clear of a road. Breaking this rule could be an emergency landing, but the FAA will be all over you. You should really consider going to flight school to start. From what I understand, most helicopter pilots start out flying airplanes. Flight school isn't terribly expensive (a few thousand dollars), and you'll be licensed as a private pilot, with real experience in the air, plus ground school that teaches you all the laws that you have to deal with (legal and physics). Groom lake does real work. They actually have a huge airport there, as well as a huge above ground complex. They hanger everything underground in the mountains. I looked over some recent satellite imagery with an old military intelligence guy who had lots of experience evaluating aerial photography. They have 10 to 20 flights daily from Vegas to get their staff out to location. The base itself is a fully equipped base as far as we can tell. It has the typical stuff. Barricks, PX/BX, etc, etc. They recently announced that they'd developed and built the prototype LEO (Low Earth Orbit) ship. It's a two stage airplane. The first takes the whole assembly to a very high altitude. The second is a smaller plane that flys into orbit on it's own. http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/030606p1.xml I fully believe that they're working on new technology aircraft, which is why UFO nuts (favoribly said, just as Bus Nuts), see "strange" aircraft. I've seen photos of pulse jet contrails from several years ago, which as far as I know, there have been no pulse jets built beyond prototype engines. A lot of the UFO activity that they see is simply that. Unidentifiable, because they don't have a frame of reference. Sure, it's a UFO, because it doesn't look like anything else in use. From what I understand, they may not have been following EPA rules in the early years, so if the EPA were to show up on site, they may get fined a good bit. A lot of it consists of oil and waste fuel dumping. | ||
| David Hartley (Drdave)
Rating: N/A |
EPA is a civilian agency and doesn't register on the D.O.D. screens or black projects list of recognised agencies. Only where civilians and lower eschelons of the armed forced which are visible will they even have a say about anything. Smoke and Mirrors...... |
