A report in of a Helicycle climbing at 600fpm at a density altitude of
8,000. Of course the passenger capacity is limited to only 6 politicians
with the lies removed.

"Stu Fields" > wrote in message
...
>A report in of a Helicycle climbing at 600fpm at a density altitude of
>8,000. Of course the passenger capacity is limited to only 6 politicians
>with the lies removed.
>


Stu,

I take it from your comment that you don't entirely believe this? ;-)

I have "no" idea what kind of performance the Helicycle has one way or the
other. I have heard that turbines in general do better at altitude, at
least on fixed wing aircraft. Would that apply to rotorcraft too? Do you
think the 2-stroke engines that Mr. Schramm originally tried to put in the
Helicycle would be flying at all at that kind of density altitude?

Just wondering! :-)
Steve R.

"Steve R." > wrote in message
...
> "Stu Fields" > wrote in message
> ...
>>A report in of a Helicycle climbing at 600fpm at a density altitude of
>>8,000. Of course the passenger capacity is limited to only 6 politicians
>>with the lies removed.
>>
>
>
> Stu,
>
> I take it from your comment that you don't entirely believe this? ;-)
>
> I have "no" idea what kind of performance the Helicycle has one way or the
> other. I have heard that turbines in general do better at altitude, at
> least on fixed wing aircraft. Would that apply to rotorcraft too? Do you
> think the 2-stroke engines that Mr. Schramm originally tried to put in the
> Helicycle would be flying at all at that kind of density altitude?
>
> Just wondering! :-)
> Steve R.

Steve: I believe the report. The birds have an abundance of power. People
flying in the low lands of Illinois, Louisiana etc. have modified their
engines, in effect halving the power to get better fuel consumption and
still don't seem to have much trouble flying. There have been other reports
of flying the Helicycle above 11,000. My comment about the passengers was
just a slam at politicians.
I don't know what the performance of the 2 stroke would be. If I had to
guess, I would expect the 2 stroke to be encapable at that high of a density
altitude. Some form of Mixture control would be necessary. I think that
there is one Helicycle flying with the 2 stroke, but I've never heard any
performance reporting.

Stu

"Stu Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Stu Fields" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>A report in of a Helicycle climbing at 600fpm at a density altitude of
>>>8,000. Of course the passenger capacity is limited to only 6 politicians
>>>with the lies removed.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Stu,
>>
>> I take it from your comment that you don't entirely believe this? ;-)
>>
>> I have "no" idea what kind of performance the Helicycle has one way or
>> the other. I have heard that turbines in general do better at altitude,
>> at least on fixed wing aircraft. Would that apply to rotorcraft too? Do
>> you think the 2-stroke engines that Mr. Schramm originally tried to put
>> in the Helicycle would be flying at all at that kind of density altitude?
>>
>> Just wondering! :-)
>> Steve R.
>
> Steve: I believe the report. The birds have an abundance of power.
> People flying in the low lands of Illinois, Louisiana etc. have modified
> their engines, in effect halving the power to get better fuel consumption
> and still don't seem to have much trouble flying. There have been other
> reports of flying the Helicycle above 11,000. My comment about the
> passengers was just a slam at politicians.
> I don't know what the performance of the 2 stroke would be. If I had to
> guess, I would expect the 2 stroke to be encapable at that high of a
> density altitude. Some form of Mixture control would be necessary. I
> think that there is one Helicycle flying with the 2 stroke, but I've never
> heard any performance reporting.
>
> Stu

Got another report of HOGE in excess of 8500' These things are sounding
better and better.

Stu

"Stu Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stu Fields" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Steve R." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Stu Fields" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>A report in of a Helicycle climbing at 600fpm at a density altitude of
>>>>8,000. Of course the passenger capacity is limited to only 6
>>>>politicians with the lies removed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stu,
>>>
>>> I take it from your comment that you don't entirely believe this? ;-)
>>>
>>> I have "no" idea what kind of performance the Helicycle has one way or
>>> the other. I have heard that turbines in general do better at altitude,
>>> at least on fixed wing aircraft. Would that apply to rotorcraft too?
>>> Do you think the 2-stroke engines that Mr. Schramm originally tried to
>>> put in the Helicycle would be flying at all at that kind of density
>>> altitude?
>>>
>>> Just wondering! :-)
>>> Steve R.
>>
>> Steve: I believe the report. The birds have an abundance of power.
>> People flying in the low lands of Illinois, Louisiana etc. have modified
>> their engines, in effect halving the power to get better fuel consumption
>> and still don't seem to have much trouble flying. There have been other
>> reports of flying the Helicycle above 11,000. My comment about the
>> passengers was just a slam at politicians.
>> I don't know what the performance of the 2 stroke would be. If I had to
>> guess, I would expect the 2 stroke to be encapable at that high of a
>> density altitude. Some form of Mixture control would be necessary. I
>> think that there is one Helicycle flying with the 2 stroke, but I've
>> never heard any performance reporting.
>>
>> Stu
>
> Got another report of HOGE in excess of 8500' These things are sounding
> better and better.
>
> Stu

Cool, Thanks!

Steve R.

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:03:09 -0700, "Stu Fields" > wrote:
>
>
>>Got another report of HOGE in excess of 8500' These things are sounding
>>better and better.
>
> Probably with a couple gallons of fuel and a 150lb pilot on board...
>
> I wish someone would make an experimental/hombuilt capable of housing
> my 74" and 225 lbs. :)

Kevin: You are a candidate for my guaranteed power-to-weight enhancement
program. It is 100% money back guarantee to work. It involves a hockey
goalies face mask and when worn at meal time will cut your 225 down a bit.
I know the Helicycle says that for pilots less than 180# it is possible to
add a 5 gal. aux tank to increase the range. Well my 194# didn't look to
good anyway (73") so after looking at the 72" 170# guys on WEC I decided
that I can go there. My 194# is now @ 182# and going down. I didn't have
to resort to the goalies mask yet.

Stu

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 19:31:38 -0700, "Stu Fields" > wrote:
>
>
>>Kevin: You are a candidate for my guaranteed power-to-weight enhancement
>>program. It is 100% money back guarantee to work.
>
> Since it's evidently free, I don't see how you'd be risking anything
> form YOUR side. :)
>
>>It involves a hockey
>>goalies face mask and when worn at meal time will cut your 225 down a bit.
>
> I imagine that wouldn't go over too well when I take the wife out to
> dinner.
>
>>I know the Helicycle says that for pilots less than 180# it is possible to
>>add a 5 gal. aux tank to increase the range. Well my 194# didn't look to
>>good anyway (73") so after looking at the 72" 170# guys on WEC I decided
>>that I can go there. My 194# is now @ 182# and going down. I didn't have
>>to resort to the goalies mask yet.
>
> Man, I was 170 lbs at my HS graduation, 175lbs when I got married 6
> years later... I can't blame anyone but the cook in the house - me!
> :)

Update: 180 and headed for 170#. BTW don't worry about the goalies mask in
a restaurant. If a very large number of people ever decide to avoid
diabetes and high blood pressure., you will look strange without a mask.
Obesity seems to be a very popular sport right now.
For some reason the helicopters attract a lot of people who would primarily
only qualify for a two seat Huey. Or a 1/2 seat R-22?

Stu