View Single Post
Old 02-26-2021, 01:59 PM   #26 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,312
Thanks: 24,439
Thanked 7,386 Times in 4,783 Posts
some back of the envelope numbers for Jetoptera

* the compressor requires 1.25-megawatts/ hour net energy input for level flight cruise, of unknown velocity which matches drag equal to a maximum 3,000- pounds thrust.
* @ 55% thermal efficiency maximum for an aviation gas turbine, requires 16.835-gallons JET-A ( 135,000 Btus/gallon )[ 2.272727- megawatts gross ] /hour.
* with the forward thrusters tucked into the fuselage, the majority 'laminar' flow claim seems reasonable. She's a 'pusher' plane, with no propeller slipstream contaminating the canard, forward fuselage, and forward box-wing.
* more efficient than a 'turbojet' small plane ( in an era when turbofan engines are the benchmark ).
* faster than a 'helicopter' ( no comparative data provided )
* up to 15-X air multiplication ( they use a 'static' Toshiba-Dyson fan as a comparison to a 'dynamic' airframe ).
* for FAA certification, Jetoptera would have to demonstrate flight control in a power-off / hands-off flight scenario, and be able to self-recover from spin , stall, and land as a fixed-wing ( as auto-rotation is obviously impossible ). Canards would have to deploy without power, and without the forward propulsors. STOL would be impossible. The plane doesn't appear to have any brakes, which would be necessary with very high stall speed, landing speed. Emergency fuel dump would be a good idea. If not a all-aircraft parachute system.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
freebeard (02-26-2021)