Pulsejet versus turbine

Fast, faster and fastest -- if it's quick, talk about it here.

Re: Pulsejet versus turbine

Postby Joe » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:50 pm

I like the placement of the jet in the Bobcat, inline with the main body of the craft. Most drones and the V-1 had engines offset, nearly doubling the cross section.

Reducing the cross section, drag, and weight become as important as engine performance.

Once the cross sectional area is reduced along with the wing size, the airfame starts looking like a m*ss*l*.
One nifty thing I noticed when reviewing m*ss*l*s, is the control surfaces can be offset considerable distance from the CG. Creating almost a leverage effect. In some units forward fins are mounted directly to servos.
Here in the states it is illegal to fly something like this when the thrust of the engine exceeds the craft weight for the majority of a flight (when electronically controlled). Pull the electronics, fly uncontrolled and it is perfectly legal.

I think Ben said it best:
"Those Who Trade Liberty for Security Get Neither"
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Pulsejet versus turbine

Postby disco stu » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:21 am

Any progress on this? Always been keen to make a pulsejet, don't think it will actually happen one day soon though
disco stu
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:58 am

Re: Pulsejet versus turbine

Postby RCModelReviews » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:01 pm

Summer's here and I'll be working on my jet engines/models in coming weeks with plenty of updates.

Right now I'm still recovering from a big RC event I organized last weekend.
RCModelReviews.com, just the facts.
User avatar
Posts: 2120
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:40 am

Re: Pulsejet versus turbine

Postby AltechMYOB » Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:09 pm

Old post I know, however my interest in these sorts of platforms piqued my interest...

Now this platform seems ideal for a PJ power plant high speed challenge, tho perhaps it might get all hot and bothered inside the cowl! It certainly looks built for speed. For the full size version - "Cruising speed: 460 mph; 740 km/h (400 kn)"; "Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B turbojet, 4,119 lbf (18.32 kN) thrust"

Avenger (Was called Predator C), the next in line for the baddest UAV.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dange ... redC-5.jpg

More info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_Avenger
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:10 pm


Return to The Need for Speed

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest