Air Scooter a Farce???

[[email protected]]

http://airscooter.com

I am sure you have seen this Air Scooter flying machine. But last year
they said it would go on sale in 2005 and now it is 2006. Is this thing
turning into another Mollar Sky Car farce? Also, the
email address is not valid any longer. Does this
sound fishy to anyone else?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://airscooter.com
>
> I am sure you have seen this Air Scooter flying machine. But last year
> they said it would go on sale in 2005 and now it is 2006. Is this thing
> turning into another Mollar Sky Car farce? Also, the
> email address is not valid any longer. Does this
> sound fishy to anyone else?
>

If their smart they are trying to figure out how to make it autorotate.
Without that it is a death trap.

[Ben Hallert]

Why would the lack of autorotate make it a deathtrap if it has a BRS?

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Why would the lack of autorotate make it a deathtrap if it has a BRS?
>
> Ben Hallert
> PP-ASEL
>

Because a properly executed autorotation is a very controlled landing with
g-forces no different than a normal landing.

A BRS is not a landing but a controlled crash and by the looks of it there
isn't a lot of airframe on that thing to absorb the energy of the crash.

[[email protected]]

The BRS is a maybe not a done deal. They won't even confirm that the
BRS will be implemented.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Why would the lack of autorotate make it a deathtrap if it has a BRS?
>>
>> Ben Hallert
>> PP-ASEL
>>
>
> Because a properly executed autorotation is a very controlled landing with
> g-forces no different than a normal landing.
>
> A BRS is not a landing but a controlled crash and by the looks of it there
> isn't a lot of airframe on that thing to absorb the energy of the crash.
>

To revise and extend my remarks... (ie I hit the send button before I should
have)

Also there is the issue of where in the hell are they going to put the BRS?
Anywhere but on top of the mast will mean that the aircraft is going to have
to land in some way other than right side up.

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 May 2006 08:27:57 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>The BRS is a maybe not a done deal. They won't even confirm that the
>BRS will be implemented.

AirScotter being a helo would necessitate the BRS being mounted above
the rotor disk. How controllable are rockets launched from a rotating
platform? What prevents the shroud lines from spinning into a single
rope collapsing the canopy?

The task of engineering BRS on a rotorywing isn't a whole lot easier
than an ejection seat that doesn't mince it's pilot as he traverses
the rotor disk. :-)

[Robert M. Gary]

> Because a properly executed autorotation is a very controlled landing with
> g-forces no different than a normal landing.

NTSB database is full of reports of Jet Rangers and the like breaking
skids when being autorotated by professional pilots.

-Robert

[Flyingmonk]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > http://airscooter.com
> >
> > I am sure you have seen this Air Scooter flying machine. But last year
> > they said it would go on sale in 2005 and now it is 2006. Is this thing
> > turning into another Mollar Sky Car farce? Also, the
> > email address is not valid any longer. Does this
> > sound fishy to anyone else?
> >
>
> If their smart they are trying to figure out how to make it autorotate.
> Without that it is a death trap.

"If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
power redondancy.

Monk

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> "Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Why would the lack of autorotate make it a deathtrap if it has a BRS?
> >
> > Ben Hallert
> > PP-ASEL
> >
>
> Because a properly executed autorotation is a very controlled landing with
> g-forces no different than a normal landing.
>
> A BRS is not a landing but a controlled crash and by the looks of it there
> isn't a lot of airframe on that thing to absorb the energy of the crash.

Also, you would somehow have to jettison the rotor, or else the rotor
would snag the BRS lines.

[Bob Moore]

Flyingmonk wrote
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> If their smart they are trying to figure out how to make it
>> autorotate. Without that it is a death trap.
>
> "If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
> power redondancy.

Well...you corrected Gig's "their", but being a fixed wing pilot,
I'm not sure what this "power redondancy" is in rotary wing talk.

:-) :-)

Bob Moore

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Because a properly executed autorotation is a very controlled landing
>> with
>> g-forces no different than a normal landing.
>
> NTSB database is full of reports of Jet Rangers and the like breaking
> skids when being autorotated by professional pilots.
>
> -Robert
>

Just because they are professional pilots doesn't mean the autorotation that
broke the skids was properly executed. And for every 1 that broke the skids
there are no telling how many that did no damage to the airframe.

Is there a single case of a BRS being used on ANY aircraft that the airframe
wasn't damaged? And looking at the air scooter if the airframe is damaged
you can bet your ass that the pilot will be as well.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Flyingmonk wrote
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> If their smart they are trying to figure out how to make it
>>> autorotate. Without that it is a death trap.
>>
>> "If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
>> power redondancy.
>
> Well...you corrected Gig's "their", but being a fixed wing pilot,
> I'm not sure what this "power redondancy" is in rotary wing talk.
>
> :-) :-)
>
> Bob Moore

Well yes I mistyped and wrote their when I should have written they're. That
didn't keep me from passing the check ride for my rotorcraft-helicopter
rating though.

[Robert M. Gary]

> Is there a single case of a BRS being used on ANY aircraft that the airframe wasn't damaged?

I was just wondering if there is a single case of a helicopter doing an
actual auto rotation were it wasn't damaged. When I flew the Bell 47 it
wasn't much of an issue but the big lifting helos and even the Jet
Rangers don't have it quite so easy. I think the weights they put on
the ends of the rotors are only there to give enough energy to save
lives, not necessarily to avoid damaging the aircraft.

-Robert

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Is there a single case of a BRS being used on ANY aircraft that the
>> airframe wasn't damaged?
>
> I was just wondering if there is a single case of a helicopter doing an
> actual auto rotation were it wasn't damaged. When I flew the Bell 47 it
> wasn't much of an issue but the big lifting helos and even the Jet
> Rangers don't have it quite so easy. I think the weights they put on
> the ends of the rotors are only there to give enough energy to save
> lives, not necessarily to avoid damaging the aircraft.
>
> -Robert
>

Practice auto-rotation to touchdown is done as normal training in Jet
Rangers.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Flyingmonk]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Flyingmonk wrote
> > Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> >> If their smart they are trying to figure out how to make it
> >> autorotate. Without that it is a death trap.
> >
> > "If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
> > power redondancy.
>
> Well...you corrected Gig's "their", but being a fixed wing pilot,
> I'm not sure what this "power redondancy" is in rotary wing talk.
>
> :-) :-)
>
> Bob Moore

By having two, three or four engines like the Nolan brother's or the
Gen 4.

Monk

[Flyingmonk]

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Bob Moore wrote:
> > Flyingmonk wrote
> > > Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> > >> If their smart they are trying to figure out how to make it
> > >> autorotate. Without that it is a death trap.
> > >
> > > "If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
> > > power redondancy.
> >
> > Well...you corrected Gig's "their", but being a fixed wing pilot,
> > I'm not sure what this "power redondancy" is in rotary wing talk.
> >
> > :-) :-)
> >
> > Bob Moore
>
> By having two, three or four engines like the Nolan brother's or the
> Gen 4.
>
> Monk

Two engined:
http://www.helis.com/types/comultra.php
*scroll down to Eagle's Perch.

Four engined:
http://www.gen-corp.jp/GENH-4_en/

I'd still prefer a one engined helo with autorotation capability over
the above two.

Monk

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Is there a single case of a BRS being used on ANY aircraft that the
>> airframe wasn't damaged?
>
> I was just wondering if there is a single case of a helicopter doing an
> actual auto rotation were it wasn't damaged. When I flew the Bell 47 it
> wasn't much of an issue but the big lifting helos and even the Jet
> Rangers don't have it quite so easy. I think the weights they put on
> the ends of the rotors are only there to give enough energy to save
> lives, not necessarily to avoid damaging the aircraft.
>
> -Robert
>

Well I know of at least one. During my training and with about 5 hours of
solo I had to autorotate when I lost the engine in an R22. Thank god I had
just spent the previous hour practicing autos with my instructor. The only
difference was instead of to hover as practiced I had to land it.

The instructor walked out to the taxiway wondering why I had landed and
parked there.

[Bob Moore]

Flyingmonk wrote

>> > "If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
>> > power redondancy.
>>
>> Well...you corrected Gig's "their", but being a fixed wing pilot,
>> I'm not sure what this "power redondancy" is in rotary wing talk.
>> :-) :-)

> By having two, three or four engines like the Nolan brother's or the
> Gen 4.


Yes, I know what "redunancy" means, how about "redonancy"? :-)

Bob

[Allen]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Flyingmonk wrote
>
>>> > "If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
>>> > power redondancy.
>>>
>>> Well...you corrected Gig's "their", but being a fixed wing pilot,
>>> I'm not sure what this "power redondancy" is in rotary wing talk.
>>> :-) :-)
>
>> By having two, three or four engines like the Nolan brother's or the
>> Gen 4.
>
>
> Yes, I know what "redunancy" means, how about "redonancy"? :-)
>
> Bob

But.....do either of you know what "redundancy" is?

allen

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Allen" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 122...
>> Flyingmonk wrote
>>
>>>> > "If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
>>>> > power redondancy.
>>>>
>>>> Well...you corrected Gig's "their", but being a fixed wing pilot,
>>>> I'm not sure what this "power redondancy" is in rotary wing talk.
>>>> :-) :-)
>>
>>> By having two, three or four engines like the Nolan brother's or the
>>> Gen 4.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I know what "redunancy" means, how about "redonancy"? :-)
>>
>> Bob
>
> But.....do either of you know what "redundancy" is?
>
> allen
>


And this is why it is a bad idea to give people grief for typos in a
newsgroup.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 13:34:15 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote in >::

>
>> By having two, three or four engines like the Nolan brother's or the
>> Gen 4.
>
>
>Yes, I know what "redunancy" means, how about "redonancy"? :-)

"Redonancy" means you're 2,3 or 4 times as likely to have an engine
quit. :-)

[Flyingmonk]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Flyingmonk wrote
> > Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> >> If their smart they are trying to figure out how to make it
> >> autorotate. Without that it is a death trap.
> >
> > "If they're smart" they'd design in the ability to autorotate or have
> > power redondancy.
>
> Well...you corrected Gig's "their", but being a fixed wing pilot,
> I'm not sure what this "power redondancy" is in rotary wing talk.
>
> :-) :-)
>
> Bob Moore

LOL, now I get it... I actually did not correct Gig's "their", but
just typing it correctly myself. I didn't mean to point out that he
used the wrong "their". I often use "there" where I should have used
"their" on many occasions myself.

Monk

[Morgans]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote

> LOL, now I get it... I actually did not correct Gig's "their", but
> just typing it correctly myself. I didn't mean to point out that he
> used the wrong "their". I often use "there" where I should have used
> "their" on many occasions myself.

Their is absolutely know reason two mix up the different uses of this common
word. Other less intelligent people than me are using they're different
spellings, and have no idea witch won there supposed too be using.

No what I meen?

<g>

And we wander why so many people have a hard time using English properly.
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Flyingmonk" > wrote
>
> > LOL, now I get it... I actually did not correct Gig's "their", but
> > just typing it correctly myself. I didn't mean to point out that he
> > used the wrong "their". I often use "there" where I should have used
> > "their" on many occasions myself.
>
> Their is absolutely know reason two mix up the different uses of this common
> word. Other less intelligent people than me are using they're different
> spellings, and have no idea witch won there supposed too be using.
>
> No what I meen?
>
> <g>
>
> And we wander why so many people have a hard time using English properly.


I have red you're posting and have had know difficulty reeding it. Its
knot difficult too youse gud English if you no it's rules. ;>)

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>Other less intelligent people than me are using they're different

you missed at least one: then

oh, and "our"

and how come you didn't get loose in their somehow?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate