• Please read this important announcement HERE

Interesting UK development

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#3
Or build it yourself and keep it under 300kg and 95.10 is fine. It’s the only class of ultralight in Australia that allows both multi engine and turbines so either find yourself an old 95.10 sapphire - several available for around $8k - and grab a couple of big model jets - many available around the $6k each - and for less than the cost of a good drifter yours burning kero at a prodigious rate and making phenomenal noise.
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#5
No - if you used a sapphire not particularly fast - probably only around the 100kt mark.

But if you went for a flying wing new build and went for something along the lines of a Jetcat 550N Single
EBA5D4C1-BB92-4D28-BE86-EE62E67474D3.png
Or a couple of much cheaper engines in the 240-250N range like the ATJ 250SV
F8AFFBC9-65EA-4159-BD60-D975BBF7BBA4.jpeg

In any event the cost of the jetcat pays for 3 of the ATJs but still cost less than a 912 80hp even before you buy the prop
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
29
Ratings
8 3
Location
WA
Country
Country
#6
There is a twin jet cri cri that operates out of YSEN. And it sounds awesome! I think it uses engines similar to the ones above.
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#7
There is a twin jet cri cri that operates out of YSEN. And it sounds awesome! I think it uses engines similar to the ones above.
I guess much smaller versions than even the 250N ones ... cri cri flies on twin 12-15hp ... 245N is similar in total thrust to around 30hp
 

Jim McDowall

Active Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
165
Ratings
124 3
Location
Kersbrook
Country
Country
#8
As CAO 95.55 requires that an aircraft to which it applies has a single engine and a single propeller probably means would have to be experimental GA or if single engine 95.10 if less than 300kg AUW and 30kg/m2.
Some glider guys have done jet mods with variable results.
 

turboplanner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,833
Ratings
5,326 276
Location
Moorabbin
Country
Country
#9
A big issue for hobby jets is fire, caused by a less than perfect fuel supply system which develops leaks. Fuel hits the hot engines and up it all goes. Fuel delivery design is everything.
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#10
As CAO 95.55 requires that an aircraft to which it applies has a single engine and a single propeller probably means would have to be experimental GA or if single engine 95.10 if less than 300kg AUW and 30kg/m2.
Some glider guys have done jet mods with variable results.
To be 100% complete you could be mad enough to put them on a 95.32 home built weightshift ... but seeing as they generally cruise in the 60-65kn range you really would be burning a heap of kero and making a noise for no great effect
 
Last edited:

Downunder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
1,915
Ratings
1,366 34
Country
Country
#12
So...I guess an Aerolite would fit nicely within our 95.10 regs?
An Aerolite 103 is 88kg without engine..(my calcs, 106 kg less 18 kg for the Hirth). 24 kg/m2 at MTOW 272 kg. (Whether the owner wants to push it to 300 is up for debate but I'm guessing wing loading is still under 30)
What would you be looking at in costs of turbines? A couple of these ATJ 250's are looking like 10 to 12 grand aussie fitted to me.

Any "ball park" conversions of thrust Vs horsepower? I'm a bit confused about that. Would a single jet me more efficient overall fuel wise? Perhaps weight wise as well.
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#13
So...I guess an Aerolite would fit nicely within our 95.10 regs?
An Aerolite 103 is 88kg without engine..(my calcs, 106 kg less 18 kg for the Hirth). 24 kg/m2 at MTOW 272 kg. (Whether the owner wants to push it to 300 is up for debate but I'm guessing wing loading is still under 30)
What would you be looking at in costs of turbines? A couple of these ATJ 250's are looking like 10 to 12 grand aussie fitted to me.

Any "ball park" conversions of thrust Vs horsepower? I'm a bit confused about that. Would a single jet me more efficient overall fuel wise? Perhaps weight wise as well.
Ok. The atj 250 are new and quite pricey. The ATJ220SV are under $4,300 each delivered with gst paid ready to install with all controllers.

One thing to be very careful of - because RAAus and/or CASA will start patrolling it is that you cannot register a new 95.10 that came from a kit unless that kit is an approved kit ... and there are no approved kits. So if you’re looking to do a bit of getting around you are really limited to buying an existing 95.10 airframe and modifying it or designing and building from scratch.

And 95.10 if fully enforced would even see minimaxes and other plans built refused rego because they are not approved plans.

95.10 is for self design and self build for all new registrations. Be very causious of trying to tap dance around it with anything that comes from a factory because If CASA audit the 95.10 register there are quite a few that would fall into cancelled registration and needing to move to 95.55 ... and you can’t take a jet or multi engines airframe into that register. .
 

Marty_d

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
2,952
Ratings
4,058 100
Location
Tas
Country
Country
#14
Can I just say two words... "fuel economy".

I think the guy said those turbines suck 0.7 litres per minute... each... that's 84 litres per hour.
 

kasper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
1,700
Ratings
1,659 36
Location
Armidale
Country
Country
#15
Can I just say two words... "fuel economy".

I think the guy said those turbines suck 0.7 litres per minute... each... that's 84 litres per hour.
Yes. But 1.4L per minute will be such good minutes ... andvthwts at full throttle ... once you get to circuit height it’s down to only 1L per minute ... I’ll take 25minutes please
 

Litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
990
Ratings
1,062 26
Location
Sydney
Country
Country
#16
Got me thinking about the fun that could be had...........what about a big single or twin flying wing aka facet opal. That would go like stink.

Just need a bucket of dollars, a bucket of time and two bucket size balls.

Perfect for the bucket list.
 

Litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
990
Ratings
1,062 26
Location
Sydney
Country
Country
#17
But I am a mad bustard, my doctors say so. Always dream about doing a revised AR5 because 213 mph on 65 HP is kinda slow. Just add a Simononi with 110 HP. Now that would be a rocket ship under 300kg.:plane:
 

jon123

New Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
7
Ratings
2
#18
Jet engines are becoming mainstream as sustainer engines for sailplanes - check out the Jonkers Sailplanes website.
Not much range on the engine so you mad bastards may have to become real pilots and learn to soar!
There are few already flying in Australia.
 

Birdseye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
837
Ratings
579 7
Location
Perth Hills WA
Country
Country
#19
Yes. But 1.4L per minute will be such good minutes ... andvthwts at full throttle ... once you get to circuit height it’s down to only 1L per minute ... I’ll take 25minutes please
The thought crossed my mind that at least you could burn cheap kerosene; then when I checked on the 'web' there doesn't seem to be such a thing, its going for the same price or more than avgas.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
228
Ratings
316 3
Country
Country
#20
Really bad idea on low speed draggy low wing loading ultralights. Makes sense on self launch or sustainer sailplanes, although if you want to fly very far in the sustainer sailplane you are better off to trade weight of fuel for an extra engine. Sounds crazy but you just climb burning all the fuel, then retract engines and use the high L/D of the glider for range, otherwise you are burning fuel and not climbing). Reason it works is modern gliders have low drag at high speed (best rate of climb speed for an adequately powered glider with a thrust/weight in the 0.125 to 0.15 region is around 100KIAS giving a rate of 800 to 900 fpm) and duty cycle on the engines is low, unlike the 100% duty cycle on a powered aircraft
I have a nice spreadsheet that gives performance for jet powered gliders. Rate of climb, takeoff distance etc. Would work for powered aircraft if you can get a good estimate of the speed polar and also would work for prop driven aircraft if you can figure out the static thrust and diameter of the prop.
If you want a jet power plane, start by flop molding a glider cockpit, put small wings and retractable or buried landing gear on it and use a couple of the 40 Kg plus thrust engines. Do check that you have adequate single engine performance, EXPERIMENTAL Amateur built and you have a nice machine to go out into the training area and do jet aerobatics. Not a travelling airplane.