constructor of ULMs, I ask myself the question: is it really useful and / or prudent to pantonize a flying machine as motorized as perfectly identified, knowing that the very liberal ILM regulations allow us to let go of it: the engine fails, we generally land without breakage! it's not an Airbus A380!
cordially
Jean Marie
Pantone ULM engine?
Hello,
I believe it is the engine most intended to receive a pantone
always in load hitch on a constant speed propeller a lot of available heat, very little variation of cruise speed and load.
In terms of altitude, we do not see a lot of UlM above 6000 feet usually the pilots walk around and do not try to climb high traffic is in the 2000 feet so no problem with the depression.
On the other hand, a bubbler on an airplane is not the ideal article. and put weight like a water tank forward it changes the weights and balance (we even calculate the weight of the engine oil).
other problem c, is for use in winter the bubbler not very fammeux
For the rest doping al, water would be perfect on such an engine.
but beware of the regulations which are less tolerant on airplanes than on cars, even ultra light. I do not believe that doping al, water is a cause of failure, more than anything else. anyway the pilot who sits in this machine must be able to land everywhere,
and if he relies solely on his engine for his safety, it is better to stay on the ground. and contemplate the gulls.
Andre
I believe it is the engine most intended to receive a pantone
always in load hitch on a constant speed propeller a lot of available heat, very little variation of cruise speed and load.
In terms of altitude, we do not see a lot of UlM above 6000 feet usually the pilots walk around and do not try to climb high traffic is in the 2000 feet so no problem with the depression.
On the other hand, a bubbler on an airplane is not the ideal article. and put weight like a water tank forward it changes the weights and balance (we even calculate the weight of the engine oil).
other problem c, is for use in winter the bubbler not very fammeux
For the rest doping al, water would be perfect on such an engine.
but beware of the regulations which are less tolerant on airplanes than on cars, even ultra light. I do not believe that doping al, water is a cause of failure, more than anything else. anyway the pilot who sits in this machine must be able to land everywhere,
and if he relies solely on his engine for his safety, it is better to stay on the ground. and contemplate the gulls.
Andre
0 x
Thank you for these responses ; even here we find air people! ;)
No, an ULM does not generally fly very high, but even so, I happened to climb to 3500 m! and make a flight around 1800 to 2000 m to benefit from a tail wind or to be less hot in summer ...
A microlight must be able to land without an engine and without breakage ... if it is not overly loaded with m² of bearing surface ... and if the pilot practices the engine landings cut regularly. To my knowledge, no legal constraint exists for the ULM engine! we even saw fully prototype engines ... At its beginnings, the ULM operated without regulation; it was the administration which had to go out of its way to obtain a minimum; Unlike the airplane, the ULM is not certified: it is a declarative system!
like gasoline, variable loads (water) must be placed near the center of gravity to have an almost constant centering throughout the flight.
I agree with André when he says that the engine runs most of the time with a regular and constant load and speed. Optimizing the system is certainly easier. Among other things, ON can have a means of shutting off the gas coming from the reactor during the descent.
No, an ULM does not generally fly very high, but even so, I happened to climb to 3500 m! and make a flight around 1800 to 2000 m to benefit from a tail wind or to be less hot in summer ...
A microlight must be able to land without an engine and without breakage ... if it is not overly loaded with m² of bearing surface ... and if the pilot practices the engine landings cut regularly. To my knowledge, no legal constraint exists for the ULM engine! we even saw fully prototype engines ... At its beginnings, the ULM operated without regulation; it was the administration which had to go out of its way to obtain a minimum; Unlike the airplane, the ULM is not certified: it is a declarative system!
like gasoline, variable loads (water) must be placed near the center of gravity to have an almost constant centering throughout the flight.
I agree with André when he says that the engine runs most of the time with a regular and constant load and speed. Optimizing the system is certainly easier. Among other things, ON can have a means of shutting off the gas coming from the reactor during the descent.
0 x
JMB
reply to vtajmb
it depends on the engine you have on your bird if it is a 1600 VW
and that you send him steam before the carburetor, it is already frosty then nothing downhill and on approach, it is preferable that the reactor does not send anything to the engine. Although I have made vacuum measurements on mine and it would not be difficult to place just behind the air filter
with a small flat venturi, although on these machines the filter is so small that it offers enough restriction and the engine siphons a lot, considering its displacement (piston of 125mm), as in descent you are always on the carb heat that will regulate your suction problem in the reactor.
To have more flexibility in use a water reserve with a little alcohol placed on the in the cabin anyway a 6 liters of water is enough
when you fly 3 hours in a row in turbulence, you have to land to stretch your feet.
powered the reactor by an adjustable flow carburetor from the cabin in order to set the right water ratio.
'Imagine the beautiful clean candles, a motor that runs smooth ....
stop thinking that the propeller is vibrating.
That alone is already tempting, in addition there is space and it is much easier than on a car. With a nice pull tab to adjust the mixture (mixture) what more do you want.
The maximum that I climbed 16000 feet, the machine still wanted, but the pilot started to find it hard and fret, in addition it burned a half tank. (ideal heat for a reactor)
Andre
it depends on the engine you have on your bird if it is a 1600 VW
and that you send him steam before the carburetor, it is already frosty then nothing downhill and on approach, it is preferable that the reactor does not send anything to the engine. Although I have made vacuum measurements on mine and it would not be difficult to place just behind the air filter
with a small flat venturi, although on these machines the filter is so small that it offers enough restriction and the engine siphons a lot, considering its displacement (piston of 125mm), as in descent you are always on the carb heat that will regulate your suction problem in the reactor.
To have more flexibility in use a water reserve with a little alcohol placed on the in the cabin anyway a 6 liters of water is enough
when you fly 3 hours in a row in turbulence, you have to land to stretch your feet.
powered the reactor by an adjustable flow carburetor from the cabin in order to set the right water ratio.
'Imagine the beautiful clean candles, a motor that runs smooth ....
stop thinking that the propeller is vibrating.
That alone is already tempting, in addition there is space and it is much easier than on a car. With a nice pull tab to adjust the mixture (mixture) what more do you want.
The maximum that I climbed 16000 feet, the machine still wanted, but the pilot started to find it hard and fret, in addition it burned a half tank. (ideal heat for a reactor)
Andre
0 x
Hello,
Glad we broached this subject because I had already discussed it with my father who has an ULM. Indeed, I have already mounted on a 2CV 602 cc engine (see download section), but my father flies with this same engine (inflated to 3 cc however) like many other pendulum ULM pilots.
Indeed, ULM legislation is very flexible in France (I don't know about Quebec, André ...) and would probably allow this to be done. For a normal flight in summer between 1000 and 2000 feet, I do not think that the variations of pressures or temperature are big problems.
Then in terms of security, I do not think this is a problem, ULMs are often very "tinkered", breakdowns often happen, which does not prevent landing in a nearby field.
However, it still seems to me necessary to provide two motor supply circuits. The classic petrol circuit, and the pantonized circuit. We must be able to switch from one to the other. Like that, in the event of a breakdown with the Pantone, we switch to petrol, a little starter kick, and we can quietly return to the field.
Finally, I would gladly recommend completely banning the Pantone during the take-off phase, where an engine failure can have serious consequences ... unless one is certain of the reliability of the craft.
Here
Glad we broached this subject because I had already discussed it with my father who has an ULM. Indeed, I have already mounted on a 2CV 602 cc engine (see download section), but my father flies with this same engine (inflated to 3 cc however) like many other pendulum ULM pilots.
Indeed, ULM legislation is very flexible in France (I don't know about Quebec, André ...) and would probably allow this to be done. For a normal flight in summer between 1000 and 2000 feet, I do not think that the variations of pressures or temperature are big problems.
Then in terms of security, I do not think this is a problem, ULMs are often very "tinkered", breakdowns often happen, which does not prevent landing in a nearby field.
However, it still seems to me necessary to provide two motor supply circuits. The classic petrol circuit, and the pantonized circuit. We must be able to switch from one to the other. Like that, in the event of a breakdown with the Pantone, we switch to petrol, a little starter kick, and we can quietly return to the field.
Finally, I would gladly recommend completely banning the Pantone during the take-off phase, where an engine failure can have serious consequences ... unless one is certain of the reliability of the craft.
Here
0 x
Hello
I take advantage of the presence of specialists and practitioners to ask you a question a little
"off-topic", the improvement of the technology in electric accumulator allows it, or could it
allow to fly an electric ULM?
others certainly thought about it before me but the technique of flexible solar panels
could? perhaps ? to replace the traditional wing and recharge a possible electric ULM ???
Thank you for your answers
I take advantage of the presence of specialists and practitioners to ask you a question a little
"off-topic", the improvement of the technology in electric accumulator allows it, or could it
allow to fly an electric ULM?
others certainly thought about it before me but the technique of flexible solar panels
could? perhaps ? to replace the traditional wing and recharge a possible electric ULM ???
Thank you for your answers
0 x
I prefer a stupid who walks than three seated intellectuals (thank you Audiart).
Hello, Titus02;
Everything that succeeds in taking flight eventually returns to the ground, ideally so that you can make another flight, at least when the return goes well! On the other hand, said flight is not a certainty: the mass carried, the bearing surface and the power allowing the bird to move forward and therefore generate its lift are all parameters to take into account ...
And it is often there that everything goes wrong ... The ULM is by definition as ultralight as it is strongly winged and modestly motorized. Experiments are in progress, but it is clear that the weight + fuel ratio with the batteries and other solar collectors are clearly less favorable than with a two-stroke ... which is definitely more polluting it is true! Flight is a matter of compromise ... The definition of ULM leaves little room for maximum weight (<450 kg for a two-seater or 472 kg with a rescue parachute). 4-stroke ULMs and even more the very rare diesel engines leave little payload ... Today, some are reinventing the plane with heavy ULMs weighing nearly 300 kg empty which are reserved for jockeys and mannequins anorexics!
In general, commuters (motorized hang gliders) are the best compromise. I had one for 5 years which weighed 140 kg when empty, 350 kg at maximum load, had a Rotax 2 stroke of 50hp. the mass was roughly distributed as follows:
- engine and accessories (no electric starter, but a launcher), 50 kg
- two-seater wing of 14m², 50 kg
- trolley with seats, tanks (2 plastic canisters of 25 l) and 40 kg train
- petrol, 50l = 37 kg
- maximum crew, 173 kg
As features, there were more worse than better ...
For the airfoil, the best kites arrive at 3.5 kg / m² of lifting surface. The advantage for solar panels is that we have a lot of load-bearing surface in general (> 10m², 15 to 18m² are common). How much does 1m² of solar panel weigh with wires and other accessories? Never lose sight of the fact that the ULM's philosophy is to be a light machine that takes off and lands almost everywhere. A poor power-to-weight ratio of the GMP (powertrain) will adversely affect take-off performance which is the essential limiting factor. Maximum power is required at takeoff: 7 kg / hp is a good power-to-weight ratio
But maybe you have or do you know some tracks so as not to make it too heavy and powerful enough in all electric? if that was the case, that interests me most ... if you knew how nice the engine flight was ....
I hope to have satisfied your curiosity oh how legitimate
JMB
Everything that succeeds in taking flight eventually returns to the ground, ideally so that you can make another flight, at least when the return goes well! On the other hand, said flight is not a certainty: the mass carried, the bearing surface and the power allowing the bird to move forward and therefore generate its lift are all parameters to take into account ...
And it is often there that everything goes wrong ... The ULM is by definition as ultralight as it is strongly winged and modestly motorized. Experiments are in progress, but it is clear that the weight + fuel ratio with the batteries and other solar collectors are clearly less favorable than with a two-stroke ... which is definitely more polluting it is true! Flight is a matter of compromise ... The definition of ULM leaves little room for maximum weight (<450 kg for a two-seater or 472 kg with a rescue parachute). 4-stroke ULMs and even more the very rare diesel engines leave little payload ... Today, some are reinventing the plane with heavy ULMs weighing nearly 300 kg empty which are reserved for jockeys and mannequins anorexics!
In general, commuters (motorized hang gliders) are the best compromise. I had one for 5 years which weighed 140 kg when empty, 350 kg at maximum load, had a Rotax 2 stroke of 50hp. the mass was roughly distributed as follows:
- engine and accessories (no electric starter, but a launcher), 50 kg
- two-seater wing of 14m², 50 kg
- trolley with seats, tanks (2 plastic canisters of 25 l) and 40 kg train
- petrol, 50l = 37 kg
- maximum crew, 173 kg
As features, there were more worse than better ...
For the airfoil, the best kites arrive at 3.5 kg / m² of lifting surface. The advantage for solar panels is that we have a lot of load-bearing surface in general (> 10m², 15 to 18m² are common). How much does 1m² of solar panel weigh with wires and other accessories? Never lose sight of the fact that the ULM's philosophy is to be a light machine that takes off and lands almost everywhere. A poor power-to-weight ratio of the GMP (powertrain) will adversely affect take-off performance which is the essential limiting factor. Maximum power is required at takeoff: 7 kg / hp is a good power-to-weight ratio
But maybe you have or do you know some tracks so as not to make it too heavy and powerful enough in all electric? if that was the case, that interests me most ... if you knew how nice the engine flight was ....
I hope to have satisfied your curiosity oh how legitimate
JMB
0 x
JMB
-
privateer69
- I discovered econologic
- posts: 2
- Registration: 07/11/07, 10:58
ULM, pantone, propeller
Hello everyone already!
I don't want to sound like a pain in the ass, but I've been producing aeros prototypes for twenty years.
And I'm working on the pantone and the electric potorisation at the moment (so 2 searches).
In both cases, the efficiency in terms of kilos thrust / cv engine is an important factor.
After having deposited in France and in Europe in 2003 a new range of propeller or rotor blade profiles, I was finally able to pass certain profiles in the wind tunnel ... must be said that as usual and like all, I n have received no official help ...
Result of the races: I get 185kg of thrust at 90 km / h with an engine of only 13hp ... With such a thrust at this speed, we take off any ULM ... For info the rotax 912 just comes out 175 kg with very good and very expensive propellers ... For information always a Savannah, a Tetras, a Cosmos, an Air Creation flies with "only" 150 kg of propeller thrust ...
However it is very simple to obtain 13cv in electric or to transform a 13cv engine with a pantone intake system.
Voila, voila ... I believe in it for 20 years and I will continue despite my 45 years!
Ah, I forgot: I lack 10720 euros to carry out the full-scale tests .... (file available on simple request)
I don't want to sound like a pain in the ass, but I've been producing aeros prototypes for twenty years.
And I'm working on the pantone and the electric potorisation at the moment (so 2 searches).
In both cases, the efficiency in terms of kilos thrust / cv engine is an important factor.
After having deposited in France and in Europe in 2003 a new range of propeller or rotor blade profiles, I was finally able to pass certain profiles in the wind tunnel ... must be said that as usual and like all, I n have received no official help ...
Result of the races: I get 185kg of thrust at 90 km / h with an engine of only 13hp ... With such a thrust at this speed, we take off any ULM ... For info the rotax 912 just comes out 175 kg with very good and very expensive propellers ... For information always a Savannah, a Tetras, a Cosmos, an Air Creation flies with "only" 150 kg of propeller thrust ...
However it is very simple to obtain 13cv in electric or to transform a 13cv engine with a pantone intake system.
Voila, voila ... I believe in it for 20 years and I will continue despite my 45 years!
Ah, I forgot: I lack 10720 euros to carry out the full-scale tests .... (file available on simple request)
0 x
Sic forecourt magna
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 6 Replies
- 8979 views
-
Last message by denis
View the latest post
08/07/19, 15:09A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in engines: montages and experiments
-
- 5 Replies
- 13443 views
-
Last message by Flytox
View the latest post
06/11/17, 23:41A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in engines: montages and experiments
-
- 6 Replies
- 11281 views
-
Last message by gildas
View the latest post
30/03/17, 09:10A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in engines: montages and experiments
-
- 27 Replies
- 30216 views
-
Last message by chatelot16
View the latest post
31/07/16, 11:00A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in engines: montages and experiments
-
- 3 Replies
- 8656 views
-
Last message by jrneco
View the latest post
11/03/16, 20:29A subject posted in the forum : Water injection in engines: montages and experiments
Back to "Water injection in the engines: the assembly and experimentation"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 128 guests