Would this plane-concept work/be legal?

[Frank N. O.]

I tried to find some pictures of the Cessna 187 and while I didn't find that I did find more info and a describtion on this page: http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/features/article.asp?id=461
It says it was designated 343 and had a T-tail, but still no picture of it. Does anyone think it's still in existance or have they smashed it decades ago?

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

I'm having a hard time picturing a t-tail Cessna.   

As to your previous post, Frank, GT engines automatically mix air and fuel.  The more air you have, the more fuel you need, so at low altitude, a piston engine will use less gas than a turbine. 

Most turbine engines I've heard of run on jet fuel.  I know that diesel and kerosene can sometimes be used as replacements, but I've not heard of any other options.  Have you heard something different?

[Frank N. O.]

Yeah I can't picture it either, but I'd really like to see a photo of it, and actually another site listed that both tail-versions were tried and it gave the reg-number of the plane. And it also said the 177RG prototype was designated 1008 I think it was. Funny thing, several sites lists a Cessna 187 but shows a 182 model, maybe there was a local designation in some countries? Maybe a Reims variant, or that other license company that made Cessnas?

Gasturbines in general can run on anything that can be burned. The Chrysler was tested on cognac and Chanel Number 5 perfume. I was also thinking that a diesel-engine might be a good alternative to the GT engine for a more conventional parallel twin engine version of my concept, especially if fitted with particle filters that would both be a good, simple and clean engine and the diesel's torque must be well-suited for planes although it seems like it would need a reducation-drive judging from the 1.7 Thielert engine's RPM range being the same as in a car, up to 4000 rpm. The lack of an ignition system and intake valve like a gasoline engine could also be good (ignition for reduced engine-failure hopefully and the lack of an intake valve is a problem on part throttle for efficiency in a gasoline car-engine but really hard to replace but BMW is doing it via one heck of a complicated system with hydralic valves and such).

I'd like to know if the self-ignition function still works correctly at various temperatures but maybe the turbocharging/normalizing eliminates that possible problem.

About the tail then I plan on asking about the various tailpositions in terms of stability esp. in terms of stall and such.

Thanks for the replies
Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

I've never flown a diesel engine before, but I would bet it would work out a lot better than a gas-turbine. 

Ask away.     Not a bad way to get some free dual. 

[Frank N. O.]

Ask away.     Not a bad way to get some free dual. 

Ok, exactly what does "dual" mean here? I first thought it meant flyingtime as a student with a instructor in the next seat but that can't apply in a forum, or can it? My first notion was it was referring to a 2 engine plane but I strictly know that as a "twin" so that was dismissed on the spot.

Frank

[Ted_Stryker]

Ask away.     Not a bad way to get some free dual. 

Ok, exactly what does "dual" mean here? I first thought it meant flyingtime as a student with a instructor in the next seat but that can't apply in a forum, or can it? My first notion was it was referring to a 2 engine plane but I strictly know that as a "twin" so that was dismissed on the spot.

Frank

Dual time is the time logged with an instructor where you are not acting as PIC.  Until you hold a rating for the category and class of aircraft you are flying, you can't act as PIC of that aircraft, so any instructional time is logged as "dual" time.  You can log both "dual" and PIC at the same time too, if you are rated in the airplane and getting instruction, such as for a biennial flight review check, etc.

Hope this helps clear it up.

[Gulfstream Driver]

Or when you're getting ground instruction.  It's not always logged, but you usually have to pay for it.   

[Sleek-Jet]

I'm having a hard time picturing a t-tail Cessna.   

As to your previous post, Frank, GT engines automatically mix air and fuel.  The more air you have, the more fuel you need, so at low altitude, a piston engine will use less gas than a turbine. 

Most turbine engines I've heard of run on jet fuel.  I know that diesel and kerosene can sometimes be used as replacements, but I've not heard of any other options.  Have you heard something different?

Most gas turbines will run just about any petrolium product.  Some are even certified to run 100LL gasoline, there are power charts in the manuals and such, since gasoline would burn hotter than kerosene (Jet fuel), and also shortened inspection times and what not, depending on how often you were to run it that way. 

The operator of the FBO where I learned to fly tells of Shell oil running a Sabre 40 in the early 60's in the New Mexico/Arizona/Colorado area during the oil boom.  None of the airports at that time had Jet-A on tap (remember, business jets were brand new, and King Air's and such were still a couple years away).  They ran 100 octane through it.  He said the tail was white from all the baked on lead.   

[Frank N. O.]

That's actually an important aspect I didn't think about, different combustion characteristics. Thanks for the interesting info and the history lesson 

Frank

[spacer]

I wouldn't suggest actually burning anything not acceptable by the engine manufacturer, however, unless you are willing to be a test pilot.
Different fuels have different burn and flow characteristics, and if you aren't well versed in the engine type you're working with, I'd avoid alternate fuels entirely. This is where you need to be an engineer, unless you happen to have a turbine on a stand which you're willing to sacrifice.
Though we covered turbines in my A&P classes, nearly all my work in the field was in recips, so I'm no expert.
It seems that 100LL would bring the turbine inlet temp way up, way fast, and there may be problems with mixture as well.
That being said, I'm sure some of the military or even other engines are designed with this in mind, but that would be beyond me without a little research.
...and my better half is giving me those eyes...
you know... THOSE eyes...
  research later...

[Roland]

I love that statement and support it to the full extend. With simple words a complex problem is described.

Thilert (Diesel engines for the Diamond DA 40/42)found it not so easy to run a diesel engine on kerosene. Did cost a fortune to get things right and honestly it will cost another.

If you run an gas turbine engine on 100LL you’re limited to a certain time to do so. Its not only the temperature that maters but the dirt you will find on the turbine blades due to the additives within the fuel. Sulphur will kill the turbine blades.

[SteepTurn]

Holy cow Frank,
You are ambitious aren't you?
Anything that flies sounds like fun but I'm one of those people who has no interest in inventing anything.
I like it when those fan things either push me or pull me fast enough for the wing things to catch enough air to lift me high enough to go someplace neat, and the faster it goes, the better I like it.
Your ideas sound fascinating, maybe you'll go on to make history with new concepts in aviation.
There is always room for a better idea!
Jim

ROFL!!!!
good points!!

[SteepTurn]

.... and fuel-economy and minimum polution.

The definition of airplane I was teached: FTNC... "Fuel-To-Noise-Converter"

yeah