Read the forum code of contact
By: 12th April 2013 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think its main attraction was as a "personal fighter-type" aircraft as opposed to its hypothetical supersonic speed.
It was seen as a sport aircraft or perhaps as a two seat business jet for an owner-pilot.
Still, the maket might be limited, I'm not sure I'd fly it without military fast-jet training.
By: 12th April 2013 at 21:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think its main attraction was as a "personal fighter-type" aircraft as opposed to its hypothetical supersonic speed.
It was seen as a sport aircraft or perhaps as a two seat business jet for an owner-pilot.Still, the maket might be limited, I'm not sure I'd fly it without military fast-jet training.
Thanks Boyle for your input !
Do you think this cruise engine + 2 rockets is a viable idea to go supersonic pretty cheaply ?
Here is another contender...David Rose's MACH BUSTER.
By: 12th April 2013 at 22:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RCS
This could also be made into a sales article while it carries an AESA radar and a cannon + 4 concealed AAMs.
Anyone interested ?
5.2 x smaller than a J.20 it has 1/5.2^2=1/27 just one twenty seventh RCS...am I right..if othervise stealth design done correctly..or more if even better made.
By: 12th April 2013 at 23:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-There are also regulatory issues (at least in the US):
Sec. 91.817 — Civil aircraft sonic boom.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in the United States at a true flight Mach number greater than 1 except in compliance with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued to the operator under appendix B of this part.
(b) In addition, no person may operate a civil aircraft for which the maximum operating limit speed MM0exceeds a Mach number of 1, to or from an airport in the United States, unless—
(1) Information available to the flight crew includes flight limitations that ensure that flights entering or leaving the United States will not cause a sonic boom to reach the surface within the United States; and
(2) The operator complies with the flight limitations prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or complies with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued under appendix B of this part.
By: 13th April 2013 at 02:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Also regulatory issues in the UK for anything faster than 250 knots
Mogy
By: 13th April 2013 at 06:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Also regulatory issues in the UK for anything faster than 250 knotsMogy
Ok I see...so what this could become is like in Switzerland they can bring arms home for reservists right ?
So a group of reservists like lets say 10 all pay 100 000 £/$/€ ( or larger community like 1000 people all pay 1000 ) and these 10 reservist ( per plane ) then maintain this ac and fly it no faster than 250 kts on weekends to keep up their skills.
On army rehersals they can fit the craft with 2 rockets ( 130 kg each cost lets say 800 €/$/£ ) they can experience the mach 1 macig all when no restrictions apply.
Community of 1000 could pay for these 10 people then the needed flying time. I bet the PW617F-E won't burn much more than 300 liters / hr.
This sized 1800 kg jet cannot cost more than a 10 000 000 usd a piece.
By: 13th April 2013 at 06:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think its main attraction was as a "personal fighter-type" aircraft as opposed to its hypothetical supersonic speed.
It was strongly marketed and widely made publicly known as a super sonic homebuilt.
By: 13th April 2013 at 08:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Community of 1000 could pay for these 10 people then the needed flying time. I bet the PW617F-E won't burn much more than 300 liters / hr.
This sized 1800 kg jet cannot cost more than a 10 000 000 usd a piece.
Looks as though you have done a lot of planning and maybe have a secret agenda on this subject? :D
By: 13th April 2013 at 09:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Secret Agenda ?
No secret agenda...( if not downsizing is a secret ) !
This is a 7th generation jet interceptor.
I figure by 2040 there is paractically no oil left.
At present a J-20 burns 90 000 liter / hr at full AB ( SFC 2.0 ).
A regular bio fuel plant produces around 10 000 000 liters a year. This is comsumed by a J-20 and alike in 100-150 AB hours.
For Finland sized country this V-raptor could still be used in 65 copies and yet be flown at 500 hrs annually each with one biofuel factorys annual capacity.
I am thinking into the future.
Thanks for asking.
rgds,
Juke
:rolleyes:
PS: ...and yes done a lot of planning since I will make flying R/C copy soon...I wanna be sure it is right at the first try. Furthermore I don't want anyone to call MAYDAY; " Disintegrating....", like someone called on BD-10. Mach 1 is a brickwall.
By: 13th April 2013 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-BD-10
BD-10 data tells it is mach 1.4 mover ( in wiki ).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Q8O3B1aWM
It never went beyond mach 0.83...who to believe ?
By: 13th April 2013 at 10:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Videos:
BD-10 PART 1; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFcXSqrkmOQ
BD-10 PART 2; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O206cGDny4c
1st Video introperson tells it had no problems at Mach 0.8-0.9..used only 60% power to go mach 0.85.
By: 13th April 2013 at 14:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Mach BUSTER
David's newer design; http://www.barnstormers.com/eFLYER/2007/070600eFLYER.html
By: 13th April 2013 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It was strongly marketed and widely made publicly known as a super sonic homebuilt.
I recall reading the report on it in Aviation Week, and at that time the designers were not stressing that...probably in light of the FAA restrictions as pointed out above.
After the BD-5 program, most people were a bit wary of Jim Bede's promises...the supersonic fighter at the weight of a Cessna seemed a impractical.
Still, it would have been fun as a cheap fighter trainier or as a "time builder" for military pilots, or as a race plane for Reno.
By: 13th April 2013 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No secret agendaI am thinking into the future.
Thanks for asking.
rgds,
Juke
:rolleyes:
PS: ...and yes done a lot of planning since I will make flying R/C copy soon...I wanna be sure it is right at the first try. Furthermore I don't want anyone to call MAYDAY; " Disintegrating....", like someone called on BD-10. Mach 1 is a brickwall.
No criticism intended! ;) Good luck with the model. :)
Nice photo of the BD-10 here. Note the Titantic behind, coincidence? Five aircraft were built, three crashed. None are flying now.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/0118958/L/
That RP4 racer looks 'interesting'! :D
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 12th April 2013 at 20:48 - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 11:40
Hi !
I wondered since this was not a success; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-10
Could there still be a customer for homebuilt supersonic jet ?
With e-seat and min 340 liters / hr consumtion ( subsonic ).
This could go sonic with 2 x 8 kN rockets.
Cruise engine is PW617F-E of 8 kN.