Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Electric Nieuport?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    28
    Fitting Graham Lee datasheet with rotax 503 numbers gives you a CD0=0.07 (parasitic and interference
    drag of whole aircraft). It gives a L/D ratio of 7 (with induced drag K=0.0725), so I trust you that
    deadstick landing must be quite "hot".

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,229
    Not really; 32 miles an hour (stall) horizontal speed and zero descent, according to the CloudAhoy data.

    It was the spinning fall out of the damned 55 foot tall tree that did the damage.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    66
    Thanks, folks. A great discussion with some good information there. Sounds like the Graham Lee Nieuport may not be ideal for electric power....but who knows in a few years. Rwanttaga, funny you should mention the Fly Baby. I've been holding a set of Fly Baby plans for even longer than I've had the plans for the Nieuport, since the 70's. I should add, thanks for joining our chapter (EAA 1129 in Fairbanks AK) on zoom a while back. That was a lot of fun. Actually, all things considered, neither the Nieuport or Fly Baby would be great projects for me, as my wife wouldn't be too keen on me disappearing into the workshop every night to work on a single place plane. I wonder how a Murphy Renegade would work with electric power. I think that's a really nice looking little biplane and seems like the longer nose might be an asset for finding a place to put batteries.

Posting Permissions

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