Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: FIKI and Amateur Build Aircraft

  1. #21
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Can't argue that, but it would be nice to have the option. For me, $20k is a bit too steep for that option though, seeing how my "mission" is not THAT important. In reality, I'd maybe use such a system maybe once or twice in the life cycle of my Tango. I'll just wait it out on the ground and buy $10k worth of cookies and iced tea. It does make for interesting conversation though.
    Agreed. The only design I've even contemplated a full de-ice system for was the long distance high-speed turboprop design I've been working on. Then again, my only other design thus far is an LSA and we can see why there's no need for de-ice/anti-ice on that.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Production Spitfires do not have a cooling system in the wing leading edge, they are cooled by underwing radiators. The early models had one rad, then they had 2 rads, then the later Griffon ones had two deeper rads. It's obvious in photos.

    The pre Spitfire S-6B champion race sea planes had sort of a boil off radiator system in the wings and or fuselage. It was adequate for the short duration races in those cool climates.

    By the way, for all the EAA folks that are so fascinated with new technology and think that if it is old it must be no good, should remember that in 1931 R. J. Mitchell had a plane that could lap an oval race course at an average speed of 420 mph, and do this at sea level despite having floats.

    Years later, with all the computer aided modern technology, the super hyped, carbon, modern engine, Pond Racer was built, and despite having regular gear, not floats, and being able to compete at Reno's 5000 feet altitude, it never turned a single race lap above 400 mph. The genius of R J Mitchel and Rolls Royce was more than a match for the pr of the Pond effort, 50 years later.
    And it may be a matter of personal taste, but Rutans designs are to put is politely, for the most part funny looking, while old fashiioned Mitchel's Spitires are still considered among the most beautiful planes ever built.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 01-27-2012 at 02:21 PM.

  3. #23
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    Production Spitfires do not have a cooling system in the wing leading edge, they are cooled by underwing radiators. The early models had one rad, then they had 2 rads, then the later Griffon ones had two deeper rads. It's obvious in photos.

    The pre Spitfire S-6B champion race sea planes had sort of a boil off radiator system in the wings and or fuselage. It was adequate for the short duration races in those cool climates.

    By the way, for all the EAA folks that are so fascinated with new technology and think that if it is old it must be no good, should remember that in 1931 R. J. Mitchell had a plane that could lap an oval race course at an average speed of 420 mph, and do this at sea level despite having floats.

    Years later, with all the computer aided modern technology, the super hyped, carbon, modern engine, Pond Racer was built, and despite having regular gear, not floats, and being able to compete at Reno's 5000 feet altitude, it never turned a single race lap above 400 mph. The genius of R J Mitchel and Rolls Royce was more than a match for the pr of the Pond effort, 50 years later.
    And it may be a matter of personal taste, but Rutans designs are to put is politely, for the most part funny looking, while old fashiioned Mitchel's Spitires are still considered among the most beautiful planes ever built.
    Amen to that. Mitchel is one of my heroes when it comes to design.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    282

    If you're serious about FIKI

    If you're truly serious about an EAB aircraft for FIKI, get LEWICE (a free program that predicts ice shapes). The shape, size and location of the ice are airfoil and airspeed dependent, as the stagnation point moves. In fact, the Roselawn, IN ATR icing fatal accident is thought to have been caused by a configuration change (raising the flaps after collecting ice at a lower speed with the flaps down). There are basically 2 types of ice protection systems: de-ice and anti-ice, with some of the following pros and cons.

    De-ice: Ice has to build a little first. All of it may not shed at the same time (or on the same cycle). Cheaper, easier, and less power is needed. Runback is (normally) not an issue.

    Anti-ice: Aerodynamics are not affected (unless there is a failure are if runback is an issue). Consumes more power. System complexity is higher. Engine power might be an issue (you may still need to keep the ice off the airplane at lower power settings). Runback could be an issue.

    Within de-ice there are pneumatic boot and thumper (electro-expulsive) systems, and within anti-ice there are hot and wet systems. A wet system is simply weeping alcohol out the leading edges. Wet has been around a long time, but it is heavy, complex and leaves the airplane very dirty. But, it is making a comeback due to its lack of failure modes (no residual/inter-cycle ice) and no runback).

    Actually, a promising technology that is on the horizon is a material that doesn't collect ice!
    Last edited by Ron Blum; 01-28-2012 at 10:48 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •