December 13, 2013 at 7:55 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_129_Hindenburg
Those were/are huge…compared to Solar Challenger ( 90 kg empty in 1981 ) and Solar Impulse. Think of the most efficient non battery carrying ship based on Solar Challenger ( that carried no batteries unlike Solar Impulse with 1600 kg gross weight ).
By: topspeed - 29th January 2014 at 12:32
I hope you are doing more than assuming a speed of 200km/h at sea level!
I see lots of schematics showing great span but what are the penalties in drag for all this wing / fuselage area; the surface area (not just frontal area) will surely be a source of much drag (especially at high speed)?
Some of your earlier schematics mentioned some quite high g-limits. How are you calculating these g-limits for very large spans? A wing that is twice the span will weigh much more than twice as much.
There is program to calculate the stresses.
I figure the speed with the other calculator.
At high the fuselage drag is almost non existent..parasitic drag I mean..due to low density, low viscosity..and its nature.
The fuselage profile is thinner than the wing.
The high speed only happens if the plane has been able to recharge the batteries in thermal before 200 km/h speed at low.
By: Creaking Door - 29th January 2014 at 11:50
Now I assume it can go 200 km/h at level flight in sea level!
This also ensures the Mach 0,6 speed at 30 km.
I hope you are doing more than assuming a speed of 200km/h at sea level!
I see lots of schematics showing great span but what are the penalties in drag for all this wing / fuselage area; the surface area (not just frontal area) will surely be a source of much drag (especially at high speed)?
Some of your earlier schematics mentioned some quite high g-limits. How are you calculating these g-limits for very large spans? A wing that is twice the span will weigh much more than twice as much.
By: topspeed - 29th January 2014 at 10:28
New blog for this high flyer !
By: topspeed - 25th January 2014 at 12:00
I think I may get higher top speed than 50 km/h in sea level possibly 100-120 km/h with full solar power. But it climbs efficiently at 50 km/h.
Here are some other minimalistic planes with frontal area and weight and min power.
Now I assume it can go 200 km/h at level flight in sea level !
After all….why should it be any slower than existing kites. This also ensures the Mach 0,6 speed at 30 km.
I may have overdone it since now it has 4 times the thrust a 1000 lbs glider needs in level flight.
By: topspeed - 25th January 2014 at 07:00
So if the max speed is 27kts, what is the stall speed?
I think I may get higher top speed than 50 km/h in sea level possibly 100-120 km/h with full solar power. But it climbs efficiently at 50 km/h.
Here are some other minimalistic planes with frontal area and weight and min power.
By: topspeed - 25th January 2014 at 06:54
But the CAA i doubt will get involved with that 🙂
Right if the dinner table or bed isn’t in the 180 seater passenger plane.
By: trumper - 24th January 2014 at 22:04
Right you can even die at dinner table or in bed. Hopefully not.
But the CAA i doubt will get involved with that 🙂
By: topspeed - 24th January 2014 at 21:57
Where are the passengers ?
QinetiQ is going to fly to 40 000 meters with a solar R/C plane.
By: KERVYN - 24th January 2014 at 21:29
another (more serious !) possibility ;
………………………………………….[ATTACH=CONFIG]224899[/ATTACH]
>> http://www.thestar.com/news/2008/06/01/a_plane_with_a_flight_time_of_1825_days.html
By: topspeed - 24th January 2014 at 21:19
Oh you can die at low speed and low height
Right you can even die at dinner table or in bed. Hopefully not.
By: trumper - 24th January 2014 at 16:14
Ok..but no casualties.
Oh you can die at low speed and low height
By: topspeed - 24th January 2014 at 13:22
Ok..but no casualties.
By: Creaking Door - 24th January 2014 at 13:21
…there would be no NTSB investigations after the crash that takes place at 18-20 kts speed.
Yes, there would…
…as there would be for an aircraft that stalled at 1,000 feet!!! :rolleyes:
By: topspeed - 24th January 2014 at 13:13
16kts?
Well, on that note, as they , I’m out.
Best of luck in the future but there is perhaps a reason why this sort thing hasn’t been at looked before.
Right..there would be no NTSB investigations after the crash that takes place at 18-20 kts speed.
But it still goes near the speed of sound at high …tracks the sun from east to west !
By: topspeed - 24th January 2014 at 13:12
Solar-powered 180 seater!?!? What power are the motors for that?
1050 hp.
By: Creaking Door - 24th January 2014 at 13:11
…on the 180 seater!
Solar-powered 180 seater!?!?
What power are the motors for that?
By: Derekf - 24th January 2014 at 13:10
16kts?
Well, on that note, as they , I’m out.
Best of luck in the future but there is perhaps a reason why this sort thing hasn’t been at looked before.
By: topspeed - 24th January 2014 at 13:07
So if the max speed is 27kts, what is the stall speed?
STALL IS AT 28-32 KM/H DEPENDING OF THE CREW. Oooops caps lock on.
By: Derekf - 24th January 2014 at 12:56
So if the max speed is 27kts, what is the stall speed?
By: topspeed - 24th January 2014 at 12:48
I have no desire to prick anyone’s bubble but some of your figures don’t really work.
A sea level top speed of of 50km/h is only 27kts. What sort of wing section would stay unstalled at that speed. If 50km/h is the max speed presumably it takes off at less than that. A stiff breeze would see it exceed VMO ….on the ground!
36km is 118000ft! It will need a major (and heavy) pressurization system to ensure that the crew can exist at all. Any problem with the ECS would kill the crew in seconds if they have no space suits.
A propeller simply isn’t going to work at that height. There is not enough air.
Your original question
The answer is not yet…if ever.
Here is the foil.
Prop has to be specially designed for the job. 8.5 m dia 5 blader is on the 180 seater. Numbers show excellent thrust !