Russell Kent wrote:

Russell Kent wrote:

I think that anyone who thinks maintaining SL pressure at FL30 (sic) is not only
doable but also a good design goal is possibly in for a rude discovery.  Be wary...

Bill Jepson responded:

Russell, I want to mention something, all arguments about the use of carbon fiber
aside. This guy is NOT, REPEAT NOT, a fly-by-night shyster. He is a very
knowledgeable fabricator. His day job is to build cars that go faster on the ground
than many of our aircraft will go VNE! If he believes he can maintain SL to FL30 I
wouldn't bet against him, however unlikely.

I make no claims about his skills as a fabricator.  I was merely pointing out that
the likelihood of maintaining SL pressure at "FL30" (that's what he wrote; I assume
he meant FL300 or 30,000 MSL) is exceedingly small.  Run the numbers.  There's a 10
psi pressure differential.  For a 36" x 18" windscreen, there's roughly 6,500 lbs of
force trying to separate it from the airframe.  It's even worse for the door.

And by the way, now that he's sucked 10 psi @ ?? cfm out of the turbo to pressurize
the cabin, how much is left to turbocharge the engine?

The simplistic test: if it were a good thing to do, why aren't Boeing and Airbus
doing it?

Russell Kent

You are first in line Russell. I hope you can spare the time. 

Paul Lamar

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.