Thriller Phantom II - J-85's w/ afterburners
03-18-2013, 03:33 PM
#22
Registered
I was wondering the same thing...from the web-
The T-38 and Lear 23-24-25... they have J-85 = civilian name CJ610 - Their SFC (specific fuel consumption) is .98:1 -
So...takeoff thrust is about 2,750 lbs/hr - fuel flow about 2,700 lbs/hr (since SFC near 1 to 1) - Cruise for aircraft at 650 lbs/hr average -(93 gallons/hr x 2 engines=186 gal/hour!)
The basic engine design is quite small, about 18 inches (46 cm) in diameter, and 45 inches (110 cm) long.[citation needed] It features an eight-stage axial-flow compressor powered by two turbine stages, and is capable of generating up to 2,950 lbf (13.1 kN) of dry thrust, or more with an afterburner. At full throttle at sea level, this engine, without afterburner, consumes approximately 400 US gallons (1,500 L) of fuel per hour. At cruise altitude and power, it consumes approximately 100 US gal (380 L) per hour.
No easy way to convert thrust into horsepower...but with 6000lbs of thrust..I suspect she will move?
If it does fly...seems like a nose high attitude coming off a wave would propel her even higher...and nose down the same effect. Not sure your throttle arm will be effective
.
Seems like Howard has it right with "showtime" injection of liquid fuel in the exhaust plenum to please the crowds...but still has a prop...
The T-38 and Lear 23-24-25... they have J-85 = civilian name CJ610 - Their SFC (specific fuel consumption) is .98:1 -
So...takeoff thrust is about 2,750 lbs/hr - fuel flow about 2,700 lbs/hr (since SFC near 1 to 1) - Cruise for aircraft at 650 lbs/hr average -(93 gallons/hr x 2 engines=186 gal/hour!)
The basic engine design is quite small, about 18 inches (46 cm) in diameter, and 45 inches (110 cm) long.[citation needed] It features an eight-stage axial-flow compressor powered by two turbine stages, and is capable of generating up to 2,950 lbf (13.1 kN) of dry thrust, or more with an afterburner. At full throttle at sea level, this engine, without afterburner, consumes approximately 400 US gallons (1,500 L) of fuel per hour. At cruise altitude and power, it consumes approximately 100 US gal (380 L) per hour.
No easy way to convert thrust into horsepower...but with 6000lbs of thrust..I suspect she will move?
If it does fly...seems like a nose high attitude coming off a wave would propel her even higher...and nose down the same effect. Not sure your throttle arm will be effective
.Seems like Howard has it right with "showtime" injection of liquid fuel in the exhaust plenum to please the crowds...but still has a prop...
VIP Member
Probably a wicked surge brake setup! 
03-23-2013, 12:05 PM
#24
Registered
I was wondering the same thing...from the web-
The T-38 and Lear 23-24-25... they have J-85 = civilian name CJ610 - Their SFC (specific fuel consumption) is .98:1 -
So...takeoff thrust is about 2,750 lbs/hr - fuel flow about 2,700 lbs/hr (since SFC near 1 to 1) - Cruise for aircraft at 650 lbs/hr average -(93 gallons/hr x 2 engines=186 gal/hour!)
The basic engine design is quite small, about 18 inches (46 cm) in diameter, and 45 inches (110 cm) long.[citation needed] It features an eight-stage axial-flow compressor powered by two turbine stages, and is capable of generating up to 2,950 lbf (13.1 kN) of dry thrust, or more with an afterburner. At full throttle at sea level, this engine, without afterburner, consumes approximately 400 US gallons (1,500 L) of fuel per hour. At cruise altitude and power, it consumes approximately 100 US gal (380 L) per hour.
No easy way to convert thrust into horsepower...but with 6000lbs of thrust..I suspect she will move?
If it does fly...seems like a nose high attitude coming off a wave would propel her even higher...and nose down the same effect. Not sure your throttle arm will be effective.
Seems like Howard has it right with "showtime" injection of liquid fuel in the exhaust plenum to please the crowds...but still has a prop...
The T-38 and Lear 23-24-25... they have J-85 = civilian name CJ610 - Their SFC (specific fuel consumption) is .98:1 -
So...takeoff thrust is about 2,750 lbs/hr - fuel flow about 2,700 lbs/hr (since SFC near 1 to 1) - Cruise for aircraft at 650 lbs/hr average -(93 gallons/hr x 2 engines=186 gal/hour!)
The basic engine design is quite small, about 18 inches (46 cm) in diameter, and 45 inches (110 cm) long.[citation needed] It features an eight-stage axial-flow compressor powered by two turbine stages, and is capable of generating up to 2,950 lbf (13.1 kN) of dry thrust, or more with an afterburner. At full throttle at sea level, this engine, without afterburner, consumes approximately 400 US gallons (1,500 L) of fuel per hour. At cruise altitude and power, it consumes approximately 100 US gal (380 L) per hour.
No easy way to convert thrust into horsepower...but with 6000lbs of thrust..I suspect she will move?
If it does fly...seems like a nose high attitude coming off a wave would propel her even higher...and nose down the same effect. Not sure your throttle arm will be effective
.Seems like Howard has it right with "showtime" injection of liquid fuel in the exhaust plenum to please the crowds...but still has a prop...
03-24-2013, 12:00 AM
#28
Registered
You guys got it all wrong ------ The Navy and the Defence Dept .are testing this boat and four others for use in the waters off Iran when the shooting starts.........250 mph stealth boat with hell-fire missiles and radar evading finish... Five boats and seal team five are enough to kick the iranian navy's butt .
Water is usually flat there most of the time--- Remember the old PT-Boats from WWII ??? Only thing missing is John Wayne !!!!!
Jim
Water is usually flat there most of the time--- Remember the old PT-Boats from WWII ??? Only thing missing is John Wayne !!!!!
Jim
03-24-2013, 07:31 AM
#29
Registered
Platinum MemberJoin Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lake Norman, NC
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a prop driven boat comes out of the water over a wave, it slows down... and comes back to the water.
If this thing actually gets moving at a decent clip under jet power, my limited intelligence tells me that re-entry could get interesting. Its going to speed up when it leaves the water, not slow down. Less drag / same thrust. Right?
Its not going to sprout wings and fly to Mars, but seems like there could be some crazy air time for things to get out of shape.
Surely this is just a demonstration piece and never intended to actually run on water in anger being jet powered?
If this thing actually gets moving at a decent clip under jet power, my limited intelligence tells me that re-entry could get interesting. Its going to speed up when it leaves the water, not slow down. Less drag / same thrust. Right?
Its not going to sprout wings and fly to Mars, but seems like there could be some crazy air time for things to get out of shape.
Surely this is just a demonstration piece and never intended to actually run on water in anger being jet powered?
03-24-2013, 08:09 AM
#30
Gold Member
Gold Member
Interesting. No (visible) straps holding to down to the trailer. Maybe it's bolted right to it? That would mean if one actually launched it, there would be some truth to that old story about the Bayliner that didn't get up on plane because the owner failed to take it off the trailer.
