2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

[uniflow]

Manolis, here is my portable flyer. Two hours duration, pump fuel, quiet ( if it had proper mufflers ), 70 MPH top speed and safe engine out glide. Could be modified for vertical takeoff ( would need a different rotorhead ). 80 HP twostroke ( geared output ) engine, with a ballance shaft. Thats all you need.

[autogyro]

ANY system designed for VTOL and sustained powered rotary winged flight, using small diameter props or turbines will require a level of power that will not result in a worthwhile or safe tasking capability for the machine so fitted.

This describes every personal VTOL machine whether rocket or fan in principle. Perhaps you should advise the US Army, Bell, NASA, Martin etc that the function they are seeking is not worthwhile.

Indeed gg and while we are at it perhaps we can ask the American aviation industry in general, why it decided to ignore rotary winged flight safety by allowing designs to fly in service that cannot operate in autorotation safely?
Relying on modern materials and technology rather than established safety practice is a criminal act and is allowed solely to continue the American aviation 'cash cow' policy at the expense of 'proper' aviation development.

As to personal VTOL machines (devices), I have only ever seen a practical very light rotary winged type used in proper military and civil tasking and meeting such demands with fuel to spare and completely safely and that is the Wallis W116.
I have not mentioned rockets.

[autogyro]

Manolis, here is my portable flyer. Two hours duration, pump fuel, quiet ( if it had proper mufflers ), 70 MPH top speed and safe engine out glide. Could be modified for vertical takeoff ( would need a different rotorhead ). 80 HP twostroke ( geared output ) engine, with a ballance shaft. Thats all you need.

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t38 ... 103ea6.jpg

Looks like fun uniflow.

However

Can it carry air to ground missiles?
Have you undertaken ship landings at sea in force 5 conditions?
Can you carry a passenger 400 miles in all weather conditions?
Will your aircraft reach 20,000 feet?
Are you developing its top speed to above 120 mph?
Are you extending its range to over 700 miles?
Have you operated on exercise with Ghurkas from a C130 into actual combat conditions.
Have you operated with the SAS and other nations special forces undertaking covert operations?
Has your machine undertaken all the development work for infra red line scan now fitted to the tornado and Eurofighter?
Have you worked with the police on various operational tasks.
Have you flown it when ALL other aircraft were grounded in a hurricane, over sea and seen a water spout form alongside the aircraft?

The Wallis W116 has and much more.

[manolis]

Hello Uniflow.

Thank you for the details about the injection of your 2-strokes.


You write:
“Manolis, here is my portable flyer. Two hours duration, pump fuel, quiet ( if it had proper mufflers ), 70 MPH top speed and safe engine out glide. Could be modified for vertical takeoff ( would need a different rotorhead ). 80 HP twostroke ( geared output ) engine, with a ballance shaft. Thats all you need.”

No, that’s not what I need.

The idea is radically different.

Just like in a helicopter and in an airplane, in a gyroplane the pilot is only another mass secured to the flying machine.

In the Portable Flyer, the pilot is the flying machine.
He doesn’t need wheels to land (he has his legs), or road to take-off.
In the PatATi Portable Flyer the pilot weighs some 75% of the total weight at take-off, and he bears the whole flying equipment easily.


A wingsuiter flies like a bird.
Unfortunately the human body, unlike the birds, is unable to provide the required power for horizontal fly.

Quote from wikipedia:
“On 25 October 2005, in Lathi, Finland, Visa Parviainen jumped from a hot air ballon in a wingsuit with two small turbojet engines attached to his feet. The engines provided approximately 160N (16 kgf, 35 lbf) of thrust each and ran on (JET A-1) fuel. Parviainen achieved approximately 30 seconds of horizontal flight with no noticeable loss of altitude.

All you need to fly horizontally (for hundreds of Km or miles) is a wingsuit and 32Kp (70lb) of thrust.

An unpowered wingsuiter consumes, as he falls, his dynamic energy; this is his power, but it is soon consumed.

With a neutral engine providing the required thrust, a wingsuiter can fly as a bird for as long as he has fuel to burn.


Did you see the GoFast JetPack youtube video? (previous post)

What we try to make is quite different than a small gyroplane.

We try to make a functional / practical JetPack (or Bell Rocket belt, of Moore). A “JetPack” being a serious transport means and not an expensive toy.


What the “functional / practical” means?

Flight duration: a few hours (not a few seconds).

Range: a few hundred of Kilometers (or miles), not a hundred meters.

Weight: less than 25Kp (55lb) with the fuel, to bear it on your shoulders and be capable to walk and run.

Cheap fuel.

Cheap to buy and maintain.


Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[uniflow]

Manolis, here is my portable flyer. Two hours duration, pump fuel, quiet ( if it had proper mufflers ), 70 MPH top speed and safe engine out glide. Could be modified for vertical takeoff ( would need a different rotorhead ). 80 HP twostroke ( geared output ) engine, with a ballance shaft. Thats all you need.

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t38 ... 103ea6.jpg

Looks like fun uniflow.

However

Can it carry air to ground missiles?
Have you undertaken ship landings at sea in force 5 conditions?
Can you carry a passenger 400 miles in all weather conditions?
Will your aircraft reach 20,000 feet?
Are you developing its top speed to above 120 mph?
Are you extending its range to over 700 miles?
Have you operated on exercise with Ghurkas from a C130 into actual combat conditions.
Have you operated with the SAS and other nations special forces undertaking covert operations?
Has your machine undertaken all the development work for infra red line scan now fitted to the tornado and Eurofighter?
Have you worked with the police on various operational tasks.
Have you flown it when ALL other aircraft were grounded in a hurricane, over sea and seen a water spout form alongside the aircraft?

The Wallis W116 has and much more.

You forgot, and shoot down four Bell 47's, ( 007 ).

[uniflow]

Hello Uniflow.

Thank you for the details about the injection of your 2-strokes.


You write:
“Manolis, here is my portable flyer. Two hours duration, pump fuel, quiet ( if it had proper mufflers ), 70 MPH top speed and safe engine out glide. Could be modified for vertical takeoff ( would need a different rotorhead ). 80 HP twostroke ( geared output ) engine, with a ballance shaft. Thats all you need.”

No, that’s not what I need.

The idea is radically different.

Just like in a helicopter and in an airplane, in a gyroplane the pilot is only another mass secured to the flying machine.

In the Portable Flyer, the pilot is the flying machine.
He doesn’t need wheels to land (he has his legs), or road to take-off.
In the PatATi Portable Flyer the pilot weighs some 75% of the total weight at take-off, and he bears the whole flying equipment easily.


A wingsuiter flies like a bird.
Unfortunately the human body, unlike the birds, is unable to provide the required power for horizontal fly.

Quote from wikipedia:
“On 25 October 2005, in Lathi, Finland, Visa Parviainen jumped from a hot air ballon in a wingsuit with two small turbojet engines attached to his feet. The engines provided approximately 160N (16 kgf, 35 lbf) of thrust each and ran on (JET A-1) fuel. Parviainen achieved approximately 30 seconds of horizontal flight with no noticeable loss of altitude.

All you need to fly horizontally (for hundreds of Km or miles) is a wingsuit and 32Kp (70lb) of thrust.

An unpowered wingsuiter consumes, as he falls, his dynamic energy; this is his power, but it is soon consumed.

With a neutral engine providing the required thrust, a wingsuiter can fly as a bird for as long as he has fuel to burn.


Did you see the GoFast JetPack youtube video? (previous post)

What we try to make is quite different than a small gyroplane.

We try to make a functional / practical JetPack (or Bell Rocket belt, of Moore). A “JetPack” being a serious transport means and not an expensive toy.


What the “functional / practical” means?

Flight duration: a few hours (not a few seconds).

Range: a few hundred of Kilometers (or miles), not a hundred meters.

Weight: less than 25Kp (55lb) with the fuel, to bear it on your shoulders and be capable to walk and run.

Cheap fuel.

Cheap to buy and maintain.


Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

I know, Manolis, Just saying I think I would rather fly this, a bit of safety up my sleeve. I talk to Glen Martin ( jetpack ) from time to time, their craft seems to have got bigger and seems to me to be more like a small aircraft now. Although it does have it's advantages over the Autogyro.

[gruntguru]

This describes every personal VTOL machine whether rocket or fan in principle. Perhaps you should advise the US Army, Bell, NASA, Martin etc that the function they are seeking is not worthwhile.

Indeed gg and while we are at it perhaps we can ask the American aviation industry in general, why it decided to ignore rotary winged flight safety by allowing designs to fly in service that cannot operate in autorotation safely?
Relying on modern materials and technology rather than established safety practice is a criminal act and is allowed solely to continue the American aviation 'cash cow' policy at the expense of 'proper' aviation development.

As to personal VTOL machines (devices), I have only ever seen a practical very light rotary winged type used in proper military and civil tasking and meeting such demands with fuel to spare and completely safely and that is the Wallis W116.
I have not mentioned rockets.

I know it suits your agenda to ignore the obvious which is -
Manolis' machine is a totally different concept and should not be compared to autogyros.

[manolis]

Hello Uniflow.

What are the specifications of your mini-gyroplane? Like weight, engine, rotors diameter, top speed, required road length for take-off / landing, etc.


I wrote that the PatATi Portable Flyer is radically different than your gyroplane.

Let me write a few more differences than those already mentioned.

Think you are flying horizontally wearing a wingsuit and having the PatATi Portable Flyer secured on your shoulders.

You lie on the air as on a carpet.

Your front surface area is small, much smaller than when you ride a motorcycle or when you seat in a gyroplane.



Besides the small frontal area, it is also the wingsuit that helps by reducing the coefficient of aerodynamic resistance.

At small speeds, say below 160Km/h (100mph) you keep your legs / arms extended to achieve the maximum aerodynamic lift.

At higher speeds you retract, as necessary, your legs / arms (the aerodynamic lift is more than required). This reduces the aerodynamic resistance and increases the top speed.

With 70bhp a motorcycle can go to 150mph (240Km/h), despite the big frontal area, the weight, the rolling friction, the ground effect etc.



You write:
“I talk to Glen Martin ( jetpack ) from time to time, their craft seems to have got bigger and seems to me to be more like a small aircraft now.”

We tried to communicate with Glen Martin a few times, but he is not responding.

Let’s make a comparison of Martin Jet Pack with the PatATi Portable Flyer:

MartinJetPack:
a pair or ducted fans of 520mm diameter each,
a 2,000cc, 200 bhp engine,
a maximum take-off weight of 330Kp,
a fuel capacity of 45 lt,
a range of 30Km,
a maximum airspeed of 74Km/h,
a cruise speed of 56Km/h,
electronic flight control (Electronic Control Unit, flaps, servomotors etc),
a cost more than US150,000$.



PatATi Portable Flyer (estimation):
a pair of counter-rotating propellers of 1m diameter each,
an 800cc PatATi Opposed Piston engine,
a take-off weight of 100Kp (including the pilot and the fuel),
a range of 300Km,
a maximum speed above 200Km/h,
manual control (the body of the pilot is: the vehicle and the sensors and the control unit and the servomechanisms and the landing system, just like the bodies of the birds, bats and bugs).


Disk loading (weight to propeller disk area at take-off):
MartinJetPack: 330Kp/0.43m2 = 776Kp/m2
PatATi Portable Flyer: 100Kp/1.57m2 = 63.7Kp/m2 (a dozen times smaller).


As in a small helicopter or airplane or gyroplane, the pilot of the Martin JetPack is a “dead” mass secured to the flying machine. The flying machine is the big percentage of the total mass.

However the lightweight is more than significant for a Portable Flyer.

Think of the case wherein the static thrust from the two propellers of the Portable Flyer is only 85Kp (187lb) while the total weight is 100Kp (220lb).
You cannot take off, but you can have a lot of fun (and chance for training before the real soaring).
The pilot feels like weighing only 15Kp (33lb).
He can jump several meters in height and then land safely on his legs.
He can run fast.
He can pass from road-less areas.
He can climb easily on wild mountains jumping from rock to rock.

He has his legs, why not to use them? Isn’t it the best landing gear?


The architecture of the JetPack of Martin is oriented to hovering.
A car with the engine of Martin JetPack (200bhp) can run on an open road with some 240Km/h (150mph), while the JetPack with the same engine has a maximum speed of 74Km/h (46mph), i.e. as fast as a quarter horse.

The architecture of Martin JetPack is also responsible for the high fuel consumption (small mileage) and the small range (30Km, less than 20 miles).

What causes so poor performance? It is the principle which is wrong. It combines the disadvantages, the drawbacks, of helicopters and airplanes.


The Osprey V22 is based on the right principle: it combines most of the advantages of helicopters and of the airplanes: it is a helicopter at take-off and landing (which is a tiny percentage of the whole flight time) and then flies as a fast, fuel efficient airplane (the almost double maximum speed than the Chinook, and the more than double range than Chinook say it all).





The Portable Flyer can be seen as a scaled-down Osprey V22, an Osprey wherein many things have been eliminated (manual instead of electronic control, no landing system, no fuselage etc).
The human body has inherent (inborn) capabilities to perform most of the functions of a bird except the power for take-off and soar.

Quote from http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonFly.htm
“What a man needs, in order to fly, is neither a vehicle, nor sensors, nor servomechanisms, nor control units, nor transmission shafts, nor differentials, nor gear-boxes, not even a seat.
What a man does need, in order to fly, is power provided in a true neutral and manageable way.”
i.e. a couple of wings or a couple of powered propellers

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[FW17]

Crecy s/n 10 achieved 1,798 horsepower (1,341 kW) on 21 December 1944 which after adjustment for the inclusion of an exhaust turbine would have equated to 2,500 horsepower (1,900 kW)

700 hp or 40% power from exhaust is amazing

[uniflow]

Crecy s/n 10 achieved 1,798 horsepower (1,341 kW) on 21 December 1944 which after adjustment for the inclusion of an exhaust turbine would have equated to 2,500 horsepower (1,900 kW)

700 hp or 40% power from exhaust is amazing

And just imagine, that was way back then. I would think a new ( modern ) version would be spectacular!

[J.A.W.]

AFAIR.. Ricardo still has in their historical collection.. a Crecy test unit ( Not a complete V12 though..)

Likely, Manolis would find a combination pulsed chamber directed exhaust/silencer more practicable than a turbine,
..but hey.. then again.. ..why would you waste the available thrust as noisy/hot-noxious efflux?

[smoker250]

I think I read somewhere years ago that the Crecy relied on the thermal expansion of the sleeve for sealing, once the top of the sleeve made rubbing contact with the bore it stopped expanding. I can see that working in an iron bore with similar coefficient of expansion to the sleeve,but in an alloy bore I don't know? Does anybody know if it ran in iron or alloy bore. I'm guessing iron because they didnt have chrome or nicasil back then. Nice casting Uniflow, can you tell me what the threaded section at the top of the block is for?
Regards

[autogyro]

Manolis, here is my portable flyer. Two hours duration, pump fuel, quiet ( if it had proper mufflers ), 70 MPH top speed and safe engine out glide. Could be modified for vertical takeoff ( would need a different rotorhead ). 80 HP twostroke ( geared output ) engine, with a ballance shaft. Thats all you need.

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t38 ... 103ea6.jpg

Looks like fun uniflow.

However

Can it carry air to ground missiles?
Have you undertaken ship landings at sea in force 5 conditions?
Can you carry a passenger 400 miles in all weather conditions?
Will your aircraft reach 20,000 feet?
Are you developing its top speed to above 120 mph?
Are you extending its range to over 700 miles?
Have you operated on exercise with Ghurkas from a C130 into actual combat conditions.
Have you operated with the SAS and other nations special forces undertaking covert operations?
Has your machine undertaken all the development work for infra red line scan now fitted to the tornado and Eurofighter?
Have you worked with the police on various operational tasks.
Have you flown it when ALL other aircraft were grounded in a hurricane, over sea and seen a water spout form alongside the aircraft?

The Wallis W116 has and much more.

You forgot, and shoot down four Bell 47's, ( 007 ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGXZ96d47no

The film sequence from You Only Live Twice.

Little Nelly a modified military W116 was the ONLY technical product used in the James Bond films that actually worked.
All the rockets were fired and the systems used.
The military version undertook full successful trials using ground to air missiles against Chobham armour.
The reports from the film show that the W116 had a far better performance in all respects to the Bell 47.
Ken was for ever slowing down to allow them to catch up.
In fact the later W116 can outperform an Apache gunship.
These are all facts not fiction which I see is the main motivator these days coming from the rubbish Hollywood macho films you all watch with nothing but trick effects as far as technology is concerned.
One of the camera helicopter pilots in the filming of YOLT was an ex Japanese kamikazi pilot and a cameraman lost a leg when a helicopter blade sliced it off.
Not exactly the modern computer generated images produced today were they.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wallis

[autogyro]

Crecy s/n 10 achieved 1,798 horsepower (1,341 kW) on 21 December 1944 which after adjustment for the inclusion of an exhaust turbine would have equated to 2,500 horsepower (1,900 kW)

700 hp or 40% power from exhaust is amazing

And just imagine, that was way back then. I would think a new ( modern ) version would be spectacular!

For internal combustion concepts the Crecy puts current F1 technology firmly back in the stoneage.
True there has been a great deal of development in materials and manufacture since WW2 but it has all been controlled by regulation to prevent any 'real' development from unseating the status quo in road car design.
Four valves per cylinder were old tech in the late 1930's let alone 2014.

A two stroke F1 version of the Crecy for F1 would certainly be better than current thinking.
Although I think Manolis would probably agree with me and build a through scavenged opposed piston two stroke for the formula.
The main difference is that I would not use crankshafts or con rods.

[uniflow]

I think I read somewhere years ago that the Crecy relied on the thermal expansion of the sleeve for sealing, once the top of the sleeve made rubbing contact with the bore it stopped expanding. I can see that working in an iron bore with similar coefficient of expansion to the sleeve,but in an alloy bore I don't know? Does anybody know if it ran in iron or alloy bore. I'm guessing iron because they didnt have chrome or nicasil back then. Nice casting Uniflow, can you tell me what the threaded section at the top of the block is for?
Regards

The threaded section is for a screw in cylinder head ( water cooled ). The four 6mm threads out side the water jacket are just to hold down a cover to seal off the water jacket. I admit it's a long shot ( this experiment ) but worth a try.