Would you fly this one?

[Flyingmonk]

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm

Would you fly this one?

The Monk

[AJ]

Sure! If I slip, just call me "Stumpy."

AJ

[Peter Duniho]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm
>
> Would you fly this one?

I don't know. How much are you paying me?

[Flyingmonk]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm
> >
> > Would you fly this one?
>
> I don't know. How much are you paying me?

Five buckaroos big brother! <g> Kin I have yur boots if you fall?
:-))

The Monk

[Don W]

Holy Smoke!!

Its amazing that someone thought that would be a good idea.

Don W.

Flyingmonk wrote:
> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm
>
> Would you fly this one?
>
> The Monk
>

[Steve R]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm
>>
>> Would you fly this one?
>
> I don't know. How much are you paying me?
>

You mean there's enough money out there to get you on that thing in the
first place??



> Ash wrote:
>
>>Flyingmonk opined
>>
>>http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm
>>
>>Would you fly this one?
>
>At least a ballistic parachute would work.
>
>
> -ash

ROTFLMAO! :-D

[Stefan Lörchner]

>Its amazing that someone thought that would be a good idea.

>> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm
>>
>> Would you fly this one?


Definitely!
The reason, why somebody tried this very good, but unusual (and at first
confusing) concept is:

As we all know, a helicopter is at least statically unstable. This is
one of the big disadvantages esp. in hovering.

BUT, if the CG is above the rotor disc, the whole things becomes
stable!!!

[Ash Wyllie]

Flyingmonk opined

>http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm

>Would you fly this one?

At least a ballistic parachute would work.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Flyingmonk]

Or how 'bout these huh?

http://i3.tinypic.com/wapyfd.jpg

This one actually flew. Can you imagine losing a blade? Can you
imagine stumbling on landing?

http://i3.tinypic.com/wapyxk.jpg

How's bout one w/ only one blade?
http://i3.tinypic.com/wapz6s.jpg
http://i3.tinypic.com/wapzeq.jpg

What's the deal w/ the counter weight? Why not have two blades and use
that dead weight to generate lift?

The Monk

[Morgans]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote

> Five buckaroos big brother! <g> Kin I have yur boots if you fall?
> :-))

Nope. They will be chopped to shreds, if he fails! ;-)))
--
Jim in NC

[Flyingmonk]

Hey Jim? What's your latest wood working project? I'm looking for a
cheap table for my router, any ideas?

The Monk

[Morgans]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hey Jim? What's your latest wood working project? I'm looking for a
> cheap table for my router, any ideas?

Go to the library, and look through Fine Woodworking magazine, and a couple
of others, and find a home brewed router table you like the looks of. The
home built ones are usually superior to any reasonably priced store bought
ones - too flimsy.

There are a couple brands of router mountings that make a more precise,
easier adjusting, and easier access setup for changing bits, that are made
for home brew tables. they are not a requirement for most setups, but they
are nice for changes and precision.

I have never made one, since I have a big ole hunk of cast iron shaper at my
fingertips. (and yes, I still have all of them- knock on wood) I have
considered it at times, since they will do some jobs better than a shaper.

Key things to look for is ease of changing setups, and ease of repeatability
for precision. The fence should be micro adjustable, with some type of
threaded rod or bolt controlling the changes. The infeed and outfeed of the
fence should be adjustable independently, if at all possible. One good
thing about that kind of setup is that you can use it as a jointer, then.
Secondary, is ease of bit changes, and third, a good sawdust collection
system. It should also have grooves for guiding miter jigs or custom made
sliding beds.

Shoot, you probably can find that kind of stuff online, now.

Jump over to the woodworking groups. Some of them are pretty active, but
believe it or not, you will find some people over there to be more
opinionated and abusive, than here! Hard to believe, huh?

My latest project is coming to a close. (I hope) I gutted my kitchen, and
built all new cabinets, tiled the counter tops and floors, and also built
raised panel doors for all of them. It has been a monster, and I will be
glad to get it done. Sanding and finishing is next. Yuck!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote

> What's the deal w/ the counter weight? Why not have two blades and use
> that dead weight to generate lift?

Believe it or not, every additional blade means a loss of efficiency. One
blade should hover and fly on less HP than two blade. That says nothing for
smoothness, and I would think that setup would be totally unacceptable, for
that one.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

One small step for a man...
One giant leap for humanburger.

My apologies to Neil Armstrong.


Flyingmonk wrote:
> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm
>
> Would you fly this one?
>
> The Monk

[Sylvain]

Morgans wrote:

> Believe it or not, every additional blade means a loss of efficiency. One
> blade should hover and fly on less HP than two blade. That says nothing
> for smoothness, and I would think that setup would be totally
> unacceptable, for that one.

I have seen propellers for a model airplane that had only one blade, with
a counter weight... has it ever been made for a full scale aircraft?

--Sylvain

[Peter Duniho]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> I have seen propellers for a model airplane that had only one blade, with
> a counter weight... has it ever been made for a full scale aircraft?

At least one motor-glider uses a prop like that.

I've never heard of a non-glider using one, but it wouldn't surprise me if
at least one person has tried it. There are people who feel that a
single-bladed prop is the most efficient, because the one blade moves
through the least-disturbed air possible.

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/999.htm
>
>Would you fly this one?
>

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The picture about four slides later is not bad either!
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/1046.htm
Buzzsaw in the breadbasket - front and rear!

How much efficiency would be sacrificed by putting a wireframe guard
around these things? I don't mean a tight mesh that you couldn't still
get a finger into - but at least something rigid enough to keep you
from slipping in up to your waist! Damn.

GF

[B A R R Y]

>
> The picture about four slides later is not bad either!
> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/1046.htm
> Buzzsaw in the breadbasket - front and rear!

Holy Crap!

Is the pilot really as close to the blades as it appears?

[Montblack]

("Greg Farris" wrote)
> The picture about four slides later is not bad either!
> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/1046.htm
> Buzzsaw in the breadbasket - front and rear!


"Please DO NOT remove Shopping Carts from the parking lot."


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Sylvain" > wrote
>
> I have seen propellers for a model airplane that had only one blade, with
> a counter weight... has it ever been made for a full scale aircraft?

Common enough for at least one sailplane manufacturer with self launch, or
sustain capability engine, to use a one blade prop. When shut down, the
engine lines up the prop a certain way, and the prop and engine fold back
into the fuselage, behind the cockpit.

I don't remember that much about it, but I read about it, one time, a while
back.

Anyone remember what I am thinking about?
--
Jim in NC

[Shiver]

> Morgans > wrote:

> Anyone remember what I am thinking about?

Don't recall that one, but I have seen photos of the
glider with the two (model) jet engines that folded
back into the fuselage behind the pilot.

These were the same type of model jet engines that
are used on the Cri Cri.

[Morgans]

"Greg Farris" > wrote

> The picture about four slides later is not bad either!
> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Helicopters/1046.htm
> Buzzsaw in the breadbasket - front and rear!
>
> How much efficiency would be sacrificed by putting a wireframe guard
> around these things? I don't mean a tight mesh that you couldn't still
> get a finger into - but at least something rigid enough to keep you
> from slipping in up to your waist! Damn.

Damn, is the least you can say? Double damn!

Ever seen a prop spin off of a model airplane engine? I have.

I was testing the needle setting by holding it pointed straight up, wide
open throttle. If it sags, going lean pointed up like that, then it needs
more adjustment.

For what ever reason, (either it got loosened, or I forgot to tighten it) it
suddenly departed the engine. I was surprised (understatement of the year)
to see it continuing to spin, in the same rotational plane. With no weight
holding it down, the thrust lifted the prop straight up into the air about 5
feet rather quickly; then it arced back over my head. (and two or three
other ducking bystanders) It happened so quickly, I barely had time to duck
and pull the throttle down, to avoid hand grenading the engine.

Now picture one of those props doing the same thing.

Oh, and I also wonder what OSHA would think about that setup, nowadays.
<(:-o)

Nah, that's a lie. I don't have to wonder! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Steve R]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve R" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You mean there's enough money out there to get you on that thing in the
>> first place??
>
> Absolutely. It looks fun enough, and I'd be willing to take the risk,
> given enough hazardous duty pay.
>
> $5 isn't going to do it though. And payment would have to be guaranteed,
> even in the event of my demise. Got a family to feed, ya' know.
>
> A million bucks might be enough.
>
> Pete
>

I'm glad you're able to place such a solid figure on the worth of your life!
I'm not sure I could do that. A million bucks isn't going to mean much to
me if I wind up in the consistancy of thin sliced bologna! ;-)

Good luck,
Steve R.

[JP]

Perhaps it was this powered sailplane?

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent_a.htm

JP


"Morgans" > kirjoitti
...
>
> "Sylvain" > wrote
>>
>> I have seen propellers for a model airplane that had only one blade,
>> with
>> a counter weight... has it ever been made for a full scale aircraft?
>
> Common enough for at least one sailplane manufacturer with self launch, or
> sustain capability engine, to use a one blade prop. When shut down, the
> engine lines up the prop a certain way, and the prop and engine fold back
> into the fuselage, behind the cockpit.
>
> I don't remember that much about it, but I read about it, one time, a
> while back.
>
> Anyone remember what I am thinking about?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[JP]

One such video is available:

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/videogallery.htm

choose

Bob Carlton's Silent Club Jet Sailplane aerobatic routine

1 min 52 sec video, 3.71 Mb


JP


"Shiver" > kirjoitti
...
>> Morgans > wrote:
>
>> Anyone remember what I am thinking about?
>
> Don't recall that one, but I have seen photos of the
> glider with the two (model) jet engines that folded
> back into the fuselage behind the pilot.
>
> These were the same type of model jet engines that
> are used on the Cri Cri.

[Flyingmonk]

Just found this video of a self launching single blade-prop sailplane.

The Monk

[Peter Duniho]

"Steve R" > wrote in message
...
> I'm glad you're able to place such a solid figure on the worth of your
> life! I'm not sure I could do that. A million bucks isn't going to mean
> much to me if I wind up in the consistancy of thin sliced bologna! ;-)

Assuming you're a pilot, you risk your life every time you go flying.
Unless someone is paying you, you are even paying for the privilege of
risking your life. How much will that negative payment mean to you if you
wind killed by your flying?

So you see, it's not really a question of putting a figure on the worth of
one's life, but of balancing the risk and the reward. I wouldn't fly any
contraption if I thought that my death was assured. But many contraptions
are not quite as safe as staying standing on the ground, while still being
enjoyable to operate. As the risk goes up, so too does the payment I'd
require in order to get me to demonstrate that operation.

At some point, obviously no payment is sufficient, but I don't see anything
about this particular aircraft to suggest that the death of the operator is
in any way a likely outcome, assuming one takes the proper precautions.

In this particular case, we have a photograph of a person who is actually
operating the aircraft, and who presumably wasn't killed during that
operation. Likewise, with proper preparation I'd expect to be able to
operate the aircraft in a manner safe enough to warrant taking the risk, in
return for the enjoyment of flying it along with the cash payment.

I'd guess that this particular aircraft is no more dangerous than, say, the
Space Shuttle. And you wouldn't even need to pay me a million bucks to get
me on the Space Shuttle. Obviously, there's more to the analysis than just
how likely the craft is to get you killed.

That said, no one's ponied up the million bucks, so it appears the whole
discussion was moot.

Pete