Twin jet turbine microlight video
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ESSEX
Age: 55
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are straight pure centrifugal turbojets for the RC crowd, so they're very inefficient. If these engines could be coupled to a bigger fanjet in front, thrust would probably tenfold. Or a gearing for turboprops.
These engines probably burn around 6-8gph per engine, which is about 16gph per hour. This is not that far from what a Rolls Royce C250 (that's in the Extra 500, Silver Eagle P210 and Bonanza turboprop conversion) burns at economy cruise, wringing out 450hp...
These engines probably burn around 6-8gph per engine, which is about 16gph per hour. This is not that far from what a Rolls Royce C250 (that's in the Extra 500, Silver Eagle P210 and Bonanza turboprop conversion) burns at economy cruise, wringing out 450hp...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ESSEX
Age: 55
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's burning 1ltr a min at the moment, there are a pair of P 300 sx engines being built by Jetcat for it which will give it 50% more power. They will be fitted when they arrive. I have to remove the ailerons and stiffen them first before it flys again, they were twisting.
Turbo prop option is a simple bolt on, all systems are the same but there too noisy (props doing 6k revs)
Dave
Turbo prop option is a simple bolt on, all systems are the same but there too noisy (props doing 6k revs)
Dave
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does strike me a little like the worst of all worlds? Horrible economy with poor performance, range, capacity, etc. Loads of noise and no benefits. It doesn't look like it's pressurised either!! 
But as others have said, I'd still love a go!!
But as others have said, I'd still love a go!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ESSEX
Age: 55
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't take it serious, It was only built for a bit of fun! I have other aircraft for touring, aeros, displays etc. I just fancied a jet, got talking to a friend and he was just as keen so we did it
Dave
Dave
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit the Jetcat with 24oz/min of fuel flow per min at full power (55lbs thrust)and a TBO of only 25 hours has little appeal. There are several engines developed for the UAV market that beat those figures by a very long way.
A similar engine that is only 1kg heavier from AMT develops 88lbs of thrust rather than 55lbs. However sea level fuel increases to 39.5oz per minute, that drops greatly with altitude. TBO is 50hrs.
MicroJet is the engine of choice for serious UAV operators, a 17.5 lb engine will produce 200 lbs of thrust for the same fuel flow as two Jetcat engines producing 110lbs of thrust with a TBO of around 200 hrs.
Not aviation but funny (and jet powered):
A similar engine that is only 1kg heavier from AMT develops 88lbs of thrust rather than 55lbs. However sea level fuel increases to 39.5oz per minute, that drops greatly with altitude. TBO is 50hrs.
MicroJet is the engine of choice for serious UAV operators, a 17.5 lb engine will produce 200 lbs of thrust for the same fuel flow as two Jetcat engines producing 110lbs of thrust with a TBO of around 200 hrs.
Not aviation but funny (and jet powered):
I had a Sirocco microlight with a Rotax for a while before they got grounded.
It was awful in lots of ways (spoilers, wire bracing, kingpost, funny wing setup), but boy was it fun! And it could outlast my bladder by a factor of about 3!
I believe there's now a SSDR version out.
CG
It was awful in lots of ways (spoilers, wire bracing, kingpost, funny wing setup), but boy was it fun! And it could outlast my bladder by a factor of about 3!
I believe there's now a SSDR version out.
CG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ESSEX
Age: 55
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the SSDR one, it was just too heavy for SSDR with with the engine on the back. Take a 35 Kg engine off and put two 3 Kg engines on and it's well in
Dave
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ESSEX
Age: 55
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it's not! Lol!! But I know Dave and his dad Mick well.
His company is called Motors and Rotors but the engines came direct from Jetcat in Germany with full factory support for the project. ( same engines as Jetman uses on his wing)
Dave
His company is called Motors and Rotors but the engines came direct from Jetcat in Germany with full factory support for the project. ( same engines as Jetman uses on his wing)
Dave
