Pulsar with a turbine?

[Badwater Bill]

Anybody ever think about putting a SOLAR turbine on the front of a
Pulsar? Ric Stitt tells me his planetary transmission will drive a
prop at 3000 rpm as a constant rpm output from the SOLAR. At about
150 hp and using the prop at constant rpm with varying pitch, that
baby ought to go Vne in level flight.

Anyone out there ever think about this?

Badwater Bill

[Blueskies]

How many GPH for fuel flow at 150 hp? The Helicycle I saw last weekend burned 10 GPH, and the engine is derated to 105
hp...

--
Dan D.



..
"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message ...
>
> Anybody ever think about putting a SOLAR turbine on the front of a
> Pulsar? Ric Stitt tells me his planetary transmission will drive a
> prop at 3000 rpm as a constant rpm output from the SOLAR. At about
> 150 hp and using the prop at constant rpm with varying pitch, that
> baby ought to go Vne in level flight.
>
> Anyone out there ever think about this?
>
> Badwater Bill

[Badwater Bill]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:04:00 GMT, "Blueskies" > wrote:

>How many GPH for fuel flow at 150 hp? The Helicycle I saw last weekend burned 10 GPH, and the engine is derated to 105
>hp...

Dan: What do you mean? Does someone have a gas turbine on a
helicycle?

To answer your question, I think that Solar turbine burns about 15
gal/hr. I'm not sure. The BSFC (pounds of fuel burned per hour per
horsepower) Brake Specific Fuel Consumption for the turbine is much
higher than for the internal combustion engine. Hell, the Jet Ranger
I fly burns 20 gal/hr at idle on the ramp and 30 gal/hr at full power.
It's because you have to run that damn compressor at idle just to get
the engine to run.

Kind of a funny engine in a way. Burns 2/3 the fuel it uses at full
power just to idle.

BWB

[seantrost]

BWB,

Yep the helicycle is now turbine powered comes standard.

all the best.
Sean Trost

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anybody ever think about putting a SOLAR turbine on the front of a
> Pulsar? Ric Stitt tells me his planetary transmission will drive a
> prop at 3000 rpm as a constant rpm output from the SOLAR. At about
> 150 hp and using the prop at constant rpm with varying pitch, that
> baby ought to go Vne in level flight.
>
> Anyone out there ever think about this?
>
> Badwater Bill

I realize this is a troll but here I go anyway:

The Pulsar I had would hit Vne at WOT on a 65hp, Rotax 582. Why would I
want a turbine?

Rick Pellicciotti

[Marvin Barnard]

Talk to Doug Swocherth(spelling?), heck of a nice guy, just very busy.
He built his homebuilt design helicopter with Rotax power, then adapted
Solar, then went to helicycle airframe.

[Jim]

Bill, seventy turbines have been shipped to the customers of Helicycle just
last week. They are modified by BJ just for the Helicycle. It is the
standard engine now.

Jim



"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:04:00 GMT, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> >How many GPH for fuel flow at 150 hp? The Helicycle I saw last weekend
burned 10 GPH, and the engine is derated to 105
> >hp...
>
> Dan: What do you mean? Does someone have a gas turbine on a
> helicycle?
>
> To answer your question, I think that Solar turbine burns about 15
> gal/hr. I'm not sure. The BSFC (pounds of fuel burned per hour per
> horsepower) Brake Specific Fuel Consumption for the turbine is much
> higher than for the internal combustion engine. Hell, the Jet Ranger
> I fly burns 20 gal/hr at idle on the ramp and 30 gal/hr at full power.
> It's because you have to run that damn compressor at idle just to get
> the engine to run.
>
> Kind of a funny engine in a way. Burns 2/3 the fuel it uses at full
> power just to idle.
>
> BWB
>
>

[Gig Giacona]

Is the Helicycle legit or is it another Mini-500. I was looking at the web
site and can't find a think about building methods or cost. At list DF said
how much the Mini cost.



"Jim" > wrote in message ...
> Bill, seventy turbines have been shipped to the customers of Helicycle
just
> last week. They are modified by BJ just for the Helicycle. It is the
> standard engine now.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:04:00 GMT, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> >
> > >How many GPH for fuel flow at 150 hp? The Helicycle I saw last weekend
> burned 10 GPH, and the engine is derated to 105
> > >hp...
> >
> > Dan: What do you mean? Does someone have a gas turbine on a
> > helicycle?
> >
> > To answer your question, I think that Solar turbine burns about 15
> > gal/hr. I'm not sure. The BSFC (pounds of fuel burned per hour per
> > horsepower) Brake Specific Fuel Consumption for the turbine is much
> > higher than for the internal combustion engine. Hell, the Jet Ranger
> > I fly burns 20 gal/hr at idle on the ramp and 30 gal/hr at full power.
> > It's because you have to run that damn compressor at idle just to get
> > the engine to run.
> >
> > Kind of a funny engine in a way. Burns 2/3 the fuel it uses at full
> > power just to idle.
> >
> > BWB
> >
> >
>
>

[Badwater Bill]

God Damn. A real experimenter. You remind me of Craig Wall. Hang in
there buddy and thanks for the pic. Looks neat! I'd love to be
working on that thingy with you. What state are you in?

Bill

[Badwater Bill]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:03:59 -0700, "Jim" > wrote:

>Bill, seventy turbines have been shipped to the customers of Helicycle just
>last week. They are modified by BJ just for the Helicycle. It is the
>standard engine now.
>
>Jim

Damn. I didn't know that. The guy above gave me the link to see it.
Great! I love it.

I'll tell you what happened to me here. I sort of knew that BJ Schram
was working with the Solar turbine from talking with Ric Stitt. In
fact maybe Ric even told me that BJ was doing what you said above. I
got confused because TEAM (Tennessee Engineering and Manufacturing)
who built the MINIMAX had an airplane that rang a bell in my head like
that helicycle that BJ is screwing with.

I thought someone had put a turbine on one of those ultralight
airplanes of TEAM's. They had something they called the Aerial cycle
or something like that about 10 years ago, but I can't remember what
the exact name was. So, I was corn-fused a bit about it, thinking it
was on an airplane.

Let me ask you guys who know about this a question. What if the Solar
detonates or starts coming apart. Is there appropriate shielding
around the turbine to protect the pilot?

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

>
>I realize this is a troll but here I go anyway:
>
>The Pulsar I had would hit Vne at WOT on a 65hp, Rotax 582. Why would I
>want a turbine?
>
>Rick Pellicciotti
>

It wasn't a troll. I didn't know that. What was the determining
factor for Vne? Was it control flutter, as it is in most low speed
gliders? I mean, why couldn't you run that baby at 150 knots? Was it
just not designed for that speed or was it flutter?

BWB

[Badwater Bill]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:10:50 -0500 (EST), (Marvin
Barnard) wrote:

> Talk to Doug Swocherth(spelling?), heck of a nice guy, just very busy.
>He built his homebuilt design helicopter with Rotax power, then adapted
>Solar, then went to helicycle airframe.

THanks.

Bill

[Badwater Bill]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:42:44 -0500, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>Is the Helicycle legit or is it another Mini-500. I was looking at the web
>site and can't find a think about building methods or cost. At list DF said
>how much the Mini cost.
>

I don't want to endorse it yet, but BJ Schram is the inventor of the
Scorpion and the Exec series helicopters. They have all lacked a lot
when compared to a certified helicopter like the Robinsons, in my
humble opinion and I would not get in any of them and fly higher than
I would want to fall.

But...B.J. Schram is a serious guy who is a real engineer and who does
real things. He's been working on this damn thing for a decade or
more. If any experimental is going to work right and be the safest
out there, my money's on the helicycle.

I have some concerns about the Solar turbine exploding and that there
may not be enough protection around the turbine vanes to protect the
pilot. It also burns a lot of fuel, so you have to carry much more to
make it work right. But, if it has the power and the safety, then
maybe it will work. Also, Solar, themselves will probably do what
they can to help B.J. in making it more reliable and more safe.

It's too early to tell. Helicopters are so complicated that I'm
reluctant to even speculate on this project. I thought the Mini-500
was a great ship the first time I saw it (and didn't know **** about
the mechanics of helicopters or time-life components). That
helicopter proved out to be an abysmal failure, killing many people.
Schram's might do the same thing. It might be easy to fly and fun,
but it might be something that wears out quickly as parts get out of
tolerance in only a few hours. I worry about it since the certified
helicopters require hundreds of millions of dollars to experiment with
and get approved.

In the end, personally speaking...my life is not worth 1 second in an
experimental helicopter. I will never fly in one or test fly one
again, no matter who approves it.

I even worry all the time in the Robinsons. They are just so complex
and so much can go wrong, if you survive a few thousand hours, you've
done real well.

I think, if you screw with any of them long enough (from jet rangers,
to MD-500's and especially experimentals), you'll get bit.


BWB

[Kevin Horton]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:29:46 +1200, JetBoy wrote:

>
> "JetBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In New Zealand, thats why I have trouble locating a GTP30 to wire into
>> my next car.
>> Here is a better pic, must state that it is the result of starting up
> over
>> unburnt fuel expelled from previous non-ignition start attempt.....no
>> animals etc. were harmed in these experiments... "Badwater Bill"
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > God Damn. A real experimenter. You remind me of Craig Wall. Hang in
>> > there buddy and thanks for the pic. Looks neat! I'd love to be
>> > working on that thingy with you. What state are you in?
>> >
>> > Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
This newsgroup isn't the right place to post binaries. If you have to
post them to a newsgroup, how about putting them in
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, and then telling us where to find them.

You'll note that the newsgroups that allow binaries don't have many days
worth of messages on the servers. If we accept binaries in RAH eventually
we may see servers back off on how many days worth of messages they hold.
--
Kevin Horton
Ottawa

[MiniCooper]

Every few months the idea of using an old APU built by Solar or Allied
Signal pops up here in R.A.H. There are good reasons this should be
considered a poor idea.

I've collected a file of posts by engineers and others familiar with the
issues and problems in trying to turn an APU into an aircraft propulsion
engine.

Anyone who is interested can email me and I'll send them this collection.

Andrew Russell



Rick Pellicciotti wrote:
>"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Anybody ever think about putting a SOLAR turbine on the front of a
>> Pulsar? Ric Stitt tells me his planetary transmission will drive a
>> prop at 3000 rpm as a constant rpm output from the SOLAR. At about
>> 150 hp and using the prop at constant rpm with varying pitch, that
>> baby ought to go Vne in level flight.
>>
>> Anyone out there ever think about this?
>>
>> Badwater Bill
>
>I realize this is a troll but here I go anyway:
>
>The Pulsar I had would hit Vne at WOT on a 65hp, Rotax 582. Why would I
>want a turbine?
>
>Rick Pellicciotti
Andrew Russell

[Bob Knot]

"Badwater Bill" <> wrote in message
>
> It wasn't a troll. I didn't know that. What was the determining
> factor for Vne? Was it control flutter, as it is in most low speed
> gliders? I mean, why couldn't you run that baby at 150 knots? Was it
> just not designed for that speed or was it flutter?
>
> BWB
>
>

You could run a new one at that (Super Pulsar 100). Not blazing fast like a
Lancair turbine, but should be able to get about 180-185 kts VNE.

Cheers,
Bob

[RobertR237]

In article >,
(Badwater Bill) writes:

>
>It wasn't a troll. I didn't know that. What was the determining
>factor for Vne? Was it control flutter, as it is in most low speed
>gliders? I mean, why couldn't you run that baby at 150 knots? Was it
>just not designed for that speed or was it flutter?
>
>BWB
>
>

They haven't found anybody with the balls to test it beyond that point.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[pac plyer]

(Badwater Bill) wrote
<snip good stuff>

In the end, personally speaking...my life is not worth 1 second in an
> experimental helicopter. I will never fly in one or test fly one
> again, no matter who approves it.
>
> I even worry all the time in the Robinsons. They are just so complex
> and so much can go wrong, if you survive a few thousand hours, you've
> done real well.
>
> I think, if you screw with any of them long enough (from jet rangers,
> to MD-500's and especially experimentals), you'll get bit.
>
>
> BWB

Man am I glad you're the one that said this, because that's exactly
how I feel. Got friends who fly these things and it worries me. My
friend Kirk is breaking in a beautiful Rotoway that he sunk 60K into.
It's stunning. Looks like a million dollars. But this maiden
experimental flight was on his solo signoff (he did have a lot of
factory instruction.) Scared the **** out of all of us. I talked to
him and think I convinced him to break it in slowly, don't do
aggressive turns against the asphalt etc, at least for a while. Now
his op looks a little more conservative. But there are other worries.
Every 50 hours he has to lash the valves! At 1500 hrs he has to
THROW away the entire airframe. Can that be right? Man! I was
thinking of building one, but not any more.

pacplyer
nervous fixed-wing pilot

[Gig Giacona]

"pac plyer" > wrote in message
om...
> (Badwater Bill) wrote
> <snip good stuff>
>
> In the end, personally speaking...my life is not worth 1 second in an
> > experimental helicopter. I will never fly in one or test fly one
> > again, no matter who approves it.
> >
> > I even worry all the time in the Robinsons. They are just so complex
> > and so much can go wrong, if you survive a few thousand hours, you've
> > done real well.
> >
> > I think, if you screw with any of them long enough (from jet rangers,
> > to MD-500's and especially experimentals), you'll get bit.
> >
> >
> > BWB
>
> Man am I glad you're the one that said this, because that's exactly
> how I feel. Got friends who fly these things and it worries me. My
> friend Kirk is breaking in a beautiful Rotoway that he sunk 60K into.
> It's stunning. Looks like a million dollars. But this maiden
> experimental flight was on his solo signoff (he did have a lot of
> factory instruction.) Scared the **** out of all of us. I talked to
> him and think I convinced him to break it in slowly, don't do
> aggressive turns against the asphalt etc, at least for a while. Now
> his op looks a little more conservative. But there are other worries.
> Every 50 hours he has to lash the valves! At 1500 hrs he has to
> THROW away the entire airframe. Can that be right? Man! I was
> thinking of building one, but not any more.
>
> pacplyer
> nervous fixed-wing pilot

This brings up an excellent point. I have done zero research on the issue
but pacplyer's story is hardly the first I've heard of Rotoways and
Mini-500s that first flights were done by very low time pilots including
those that have just been signed off for solo.

I got my PP R-H in '96 after 17 years and 300 hours of fixed wing time and
there is no way in hell I was ready to be the test pilot in a newly built
helicopter. Helicopters are hard to fly. Much harder than fixed wing than
just about any fixed wing aircraft.

I have little doubt that if not most at least many of the accidents with
armature built experimental helicopters are because the builders had not a
bit of business being helicopter test pilots.

[Blueskies]

There is no comparison between the Rotorways and the Mini500. The Rotorway is pretty mature and is well engineered, and
the I think everyone knows the story of the Mini. Rotorway grew beyond the management capabilities of Scram (IMHO), so
he is now developing this Helicycle. I've got to say the one I saw flying was one smooth running machine...

--
Dan D.



..
"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pac plyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Badwater Bill) wrote
> > <snip good stuff>
> >
> > In the end, personally speaking...my life is not worth 1 second in an
> > > experimental helicopter. I will never fly in one or test fly one
> > > again, no matter who approves it.
> > >
> > > I even worry all the time in the Robinsons. They are just so complex
> > > and so much can go wrong, if you survive a few thousand hours, you've
> > > done real well.
> > >
> > > I think, if you screw with any of them long enough (from jet rangers,
> > > to MD-500's and especially experimentals), you'll get bit.
> > >
> > >
> > > BWB
> >
> > Man am I glad you're the one that said this, because that's exactly
> > how I feel. Got friends who fly these things and it worries me. My
> > friend Kirk is breaking in a beautiful Rotoway that he sunk 60K into.
> > It's stunning. Looks like a million dollars. But this maiden
> > experimental flight was on his solo signoff (he did have a lot of
> > factory instruction.) Scared the **** out of all of us. I talked to
> > him and think I convinced him to break it in slowly, don't do
> > aggressive turns against the asphalt etc, at least for a while. Now
> > his op looks a little more conservative. But there are other worries.
> > Every 50 hours he has to lash the valves! At 1500 hrs he has to
> > THROW away the entire airframe. Can that be right? Man! I was
> > thinking of building one, but not any more.
> >
> > pacplyer
> > nervous fixed-wing pilot
>
> This brings up an excellent point. I have done zero research on the issue
> but pacplyer's story is hardly the first I've heard of Rotoways and
> Mini-500s that first flights were done by very low time pilots including
> those that have just been signed off for solo.
>
> I got my PP R-H in '96 after 17 years and 300 hours of fixed wing time and
> there is no way in hell I was ready to be the test pilot in a newly built
> helicopter. Helicopters are hard to fly. Much harder than fixed wing than
> just about any fixed wing aircraft.
>
> I have little doubt that if not most at least many of the accidents with
> armature built experimental helicopters are because the builders had not a
> bit of business being helicopter test pilots.
>
>
>
>

[Blueskies]

The engine and disk are well behind the pilot; I would be more concerned about the tail rotor driveshaft...

--
Dan D.



..
"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:03:59 -0700, "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >Bill, seventy turbines have been shipped to the customers of Helicycle just
> >last week. They are modified by BJ just for the Helicycle. It is the
> >standard engine now.
> >
> >Jim
>
> Damn. I didn't know that. The guy above gave me the link to see it.
> Great! I love it.
>
> I'll tell you what happened to me here. I sort of knew that BJ Schram
> was working with the Solar turbine from talking with Ric Stitt. In
> fact maybe Ric even told me that BJ was doing what you said above. I
> got confused because TEAM (Tennessee Engineering and Manufacturing)
> who built the MINIMAX had an airplane that rang a bell in my head like
> that helicycle that BJ is screwing with.
>
> I thought someone had put a turbine on one of those ultralight
> airplanes of TEAM's. They had something they called the Aerial cycle
> or something like that about 10 years ago, but I can't remember what
> the exact name was. So, I was corn-fused a bit about it, thinking it
> was on an airplane.
>
> Let me ask you guys who know about this a question. What if the Solar
> detonates or starts coming apart. Is there appropriate shielding
> around the turbine to protect the pilot?
>
> BWB
>
>

[Eric Miller]

> Two Brits died in a Benson gyroglider -- about the safest thing
> in the air. Well, nobody put in the bolts that hold the rotorhead
> bearing together. It had a press fit that held up for a few flights,
> then the GD rotor came off. And that is in the simplest rotorcraft
> ever built, a machine with exactly two moving parts.

4 moving parts without the bolts.

[Dennis Fetters]

Kevin O'Brien wrote:

>>I have some concerns about the Solar turbine exploding
>
>
> They don't seem to do this in the Boeing-Vertol helicopters that they
> are the APU in, particularly the CH-47.


Boeing-Vertol helicopters and the CH-47 don't run an APU 45% over their
rated duty cycle. They also contain the APU within a housing area that
will contain the shrapnel.


>>may not be enough protection around the turbine vanes to protect the
>>pilot.
>
>
> the pilot's arse is not inline with the vanes. Of course, if they shred
> the structure it doesn't really matter because his arse is headed
> for a reckoning with terra firma.


The pilots "arse" is 2 foot away from the APU. A Claymore mine explodes
in all directions, sending shrapnel "mostly" one direction. So dose an
APU. How many pieces of shrapnel sent the pilot's way is acceptable?

But that don't matter at all. As I said to Dennis Chitwood:
"But worse than anything, due to the high rpm of an APU, the compressor
and blades are under a great deal of centrifugal force. If you have ever
seen an APU explode, you will never forget it. APU's are only used
inside an aircraft where it is encased in an explosion proof housing, so
that when it explodes it will contain most of the blast, which goes out
sideways in every direction, not out the tail pipe like that idiot Joe
Rinke and Rick Stitt says. Therefore, when an APU on a Mini-500 (or any
other helicopter) explodes, and it will someday if it is used long
enough to fail, it will immediately cut off the tail boom causing the
helicopter to tumble end over end falling to the ground and taking the
pilot all the way down, probably alive while knowing a horrible death is
seconds away."


>>Also, Solar, themselves will probably do what
>>they can to help B.J. in making it more reliable and more safe.
>
>
> This, I doubt. 1) Lawyers. (need I say more?). 2) the market
> can't afford new Solars, only surplus ones. Surplus availability
> hinges on a shrinking military, or one that is growing so
> fast that it can replace equipment with new marks. I don't
> think either is in the cards, given the world situation and the
> budgetary one.


You are absolutely correct there. They wouldn't touch you guys with a 10
foot pole! If you can't keep a proven 2 stroke running, you sure as heck
can't handle an APU.


>>They are just so complex
>>and so much can go wrong\

> Often experienced people get killed because they don't have the
> RIGHT experience. think of the Mini -- some of those guys were
> very high time in fixed wing. I know Allen was your friend, but
> Bill, do you think if he had all those hours in low-inertia Robbies
> that he would have tried to go over that wire? Instead his time
> was almost all in high-inertia Bells... they would have forgiven
> him, the Mini, which put him in that position in the first place
> with its bad design, had no forgiveness in it.


That's not correct. Allen loved his Mini-500, and enjoyed flying it over
anything else, and said it had great characteristics. He stood up in
front of groups of people and said that.

Also, the Mini-500 has a high inertia blade system. It demonstrated
hovering auto's as high as 15 feet routinely at air shows in front of
thousands of people.

Furthermore, the Mini-500 was not at fault at all in Allen's death.
Allen failed to install the correct jet's the flight before, and seized
the engine, recovering with a perfect Auto rotation. He called me and
asked what to do. I said overhaul the engine, he decided not to. The
next flight he took off and "he" decided to fly low over the power line.
As that point the engine failed again due to the damage it sustained
from the flight before. He milked as much inertia from the system as he
could, but couldn't span the great distance. I don't believe there was a
helicopter built that could have gone that far.

As for the Mini-500 being a bad design, then why has there never been a
crash due to the fault of the Mini-500? Sure, you can spew your
propaganda, but the facts speak for themselves.

Dennis Fetters

[Gig Giacona]

I in no way meant to compare the Rotorway and the Mini. My statement was
that new Helicopter pilots especially those that don't even have their
helicopter rating yet have NO business being helicopter test pilots and I
stand by that statement.

All of the kit manufacturers have it in their power to do things to stop the
extremely low time pilots. It would be in their best interest to do so.


"Blueskies" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> There is no comparison between the Rotorways and the Mini500. The Rotorway
is pretty mature and is well engineered, and
> the I think everyone knows the story of the Mini. Rotorway grew beyond the
management capabilities of Scram (IMHO), so
> he is now developing this Helicycle. I've got to say the one I saw flying
was one smooth running machine...
>
> --
> Dan D.
>
>
>
> .
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pac plyer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Badwater Bill) wrote
> > > <snip good stuff>
> > >
> > > In the end, personally speaking...my life is not worth 1 second in an
> > > > experimental helicopter. I will never fly in one or test fly one
> > > > again, no matter who approves it.
> > > >
> > > > I even worry all the time in the Robinsons. They are just so
complex
> > > > and so much can go wrong, if you survive a few thousand hours,
you've
> > > > done real well.
> > > >
> > > > I think, if you screw with any of them long enough (from jet
rangers,
> > > > to MD-500's and especially experimentals), you'll get bit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > BWB
> > >
> > > Man am I glad you're the one that said this, because that's exactly
> > > how I feel. Got friends who fly these things and it worries me. My
> > > friend Kirk is breaking in a beautiful Rotoway that he sunk 60K into.
> > > It's stunning. Looks like a million dollars. But this maiden
> > > experimental flight was on his solo signoff (he did have a lot of
> > > factory instruction.) Scared the **** out of all of us. I talked to
> > > him and think I convinced him to break it in slowly, don't do
> > > aggressive turns against the asphalt etc, at least for a while. Now
> > > his op looks a little more conservative. But there are other worries.
> > > Every 50 hours he has to lash the valves! At 1500 hrs he has to
> > > THROW away the entire airframe. Can that be right? Man! I was
> > > thinking of building one, but not any more.
> > >
> > > pacplyer
> > > nervous fixed-wing pilot
> >
> > This brings up an excellent point. I have done zero research on the
issue
> > but pacplyer's story is hardly the first I've heard of Rotoways and
> > Mini-500s that first flights were done by very low time pilots including
> > those that have just been signed off for solo.
> >
> > I got my PP R-H in '96 after 17 years and 300 hours of fixed wing time
and
> > there is no way in hell I was ready to be the test pilot in a newly
built
> > helicopter. Helicopters are hard to fly. Much harder than fixed wing
than
> > just about any fixed wing aircraft.
> >
> > I have little doubt that if not most at least many of the accidents with
> > armature built experimental helicopters are because the builders had not
a
> > bit of business being helicopter test pilots.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Blueskies]

The way I hear it, the Helicycle folks will not sell a kit until the purchaser has demonstrated solo flight in an R22...
--
Dan D.



..
"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message ...
>
> I in no way meant to compare the Rotorway and the Mini. My statement was
> that new Helicopter pilots especially those that don't even have their
> helicopter rating yet have NO business being helicopter test pilots and I
> stand by that statement.
>
> All of the kit manufacturers have it in their power to do things to stop the
> extremely low time pilots. It would be in their best interest to do so.
>
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
> > There is no comparison between the Rotorways and the Mini500. The Rotorway
> is pretty mature and is well engineered, and
> > the I think everyone knows the story of the Mini. Rotorway grew beyond the
> management capabilities of Scram (IMHO), so
> > he is now developing this Helicycle. I've got to say the one I saw flying
> was one smooth running machine...
> >
> > --
> > Dan D.
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pac plyer" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > (Badwater Bill) wrote
> > > > <snip good stuff>
> > > >
> > > > In the end, personally speaking...my life is not worth 1 second in an
> > > > > experimental helicopter. I will never fly in one or test fly one
> > > > > again, no matter who approves it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I even worry all the time in the Robinsons. They are just so
> complex
> > > > > and so much can go wrong, if you survive a few thousand hours,
> you've
> > > > > done real well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, if you screw with any of them long enough (from jet
> rangers,
> > > > > to MD-500's and especially experimentals), you'll get bit.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BWB
> > > >
> > > > Man am I glad you're the one that said this, because that's exactly
> > > > how I feel. Got friends who fly these things and it worries me. My
> > > > friend Kirk is breaking in a beautiful Rotoway that he sunk 60K into.
> > > > It's stunning. Looks like a million dollars. But this maiden
> > > > experimental flight was on his solo signoff (he did have a lot of
> > > > factory instruction.) Scared the **** out of all of us. I talked to
> > > > him and think I convinced him to break it in slowly, don't do
> > > > aggressive turns against the asphalt etc, at least for a while. Now
> > > > his op looks a little more conservative. But there are other worries.
> > > > Every 50 hours he has to lash the valves! At 1500 hrs he has to
> > > > THROW away the entire airframe. Can that be right? Man! I was
> > > > thinking of building one, but not any more.
> > > >
> > > > pacplyer
> > > > nervous fixed-wing pilot
> > >
> > > This brings up an excellent point. I have done zero research on the
> issue
> > > but pacplyer's story is hardly the first I've heard of Rotoways and
> > > Mini-500s that first flights were done by very low time pilots including
> > > those that have just been signed off for solo.
> > >
> > > I got my PP R-H in '96 after 17 years and 300 hours of fixed wing time
> and
> > > there is no way in hell I was ready to be the test pilot in a newly
> built
> > > helicopter. Helicopters are hard to fly. Much harder than fixed wing
> than
> > > just about any fixed wing aircraft.
> > >
> > > I have little doubt that if not most at least many of the accidents with
> > > armature built experimental helicopters are because the builders had not
> a
> > > bit of business being helicopter test pilots.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Badwater Bill]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:46:44 -0500, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>When I was able to demonstrate Solo flight in an R-22 I was not ready to be
>a helicopter test pilot. I probably still aren't.
>

Yeah, no ****. I'm a commercial helicopter pilot who flies all the
time with about 600 hours logged now and about 2000 hours in
government helicopters that isn't logged. I'm not qualified to be a
test pilot in some experimental piece of crap...and never will be.

I have to hand it to the people who build these things then think they
can test fly them to work out the bugs of blade tracking and balancing
and the sympathetic resonances between all the moving parts. More
power to them. They are brave men.

I'm not so brave. I flew R-22's 8 hours this weekend and an R-44 for
about 4 hours around thunderstorms here in the Southwest. I was real
happy to think that I had a proven machine around me. Even then,
some-one of a thousand parts could have failed and that would have
been the end.

BWB

[Stu Fields]

Just a comment on the worship of "Certified parts" I have a switch panel
containing Potter&Bromfields "certified" switch/circuit breakers. Two have
failed from internal mechanical (not electrical) failings. I've got a
couple of other switches that I added (mine's a homebuilt so I don't have to
just use "certified" parts) that have served for years without problem.
Note these were Radio Shack at approx. 1/8 the cost and so far 10 times the
reliability. Other stories of failed "certified" engines come to mind.
0320-H series for one.
I agree that "Certification" should buy some reliability over non certified
parts, but there is no real guarantee.
BTW I self taught in a Benson Gyrocopter in the 60's (no dual was available)
So did my wife. We never bent anything or scratched a blade. The ship is
as safe as the pilot is proficient and aware of the limits.

Stu Fields
"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >True. If you have to fly rotary-wing, a gyro is simpler. However there
> >have been an absolutely amazing panoply of fatals in those. Most of
> >them totally preventable.
>
> It's mostly due to the tucking since the center of thrust is above the
> CG and the drag component of the rotor system is way above the CG.
> When you do a negative g pushover or even hit a bump that does the
> same thing, you take away the drag. The thrust dumps you over in a
> tuck.
>
> >
> >Someone (Gig Giacona?) mentioned the low-timers pranging in Minis.
> >Well, that instantiates a much more general case. How many prangs
> >happen on first flights? Many, many, many. There are a bunch of
> >reasons for this... my personal belief is that if you are the builder,
> >mechanic and test pilot, not enough people are eyeballing the
> >flying machine, and you're gonna overlook something.
>
> Yep. Right on.
>
>
> I deleted your comments about Allen Barklage, but I wanted to respond.
> The Mini-500 has a higher inertia rotorsystem than the R-22 as I
> recall. Allen loved flying that Mini-500 and his weight was good for
> it too IIRC. You can blame fetters about a lot of stuff but Allen, of
> all people, should have known about clearing the wires and the
> capability of that machine. Gil Armbruster called me the night before
> he died. We talked about the problems of warming up the engine before
> you pulled pitch. Gil told me he had pulled pitch and saw the
> tempertature drop as the thermostat opened. He knew that he hadn't
> warmed the thing up all the way. Rotax said if you do that you
> probably scuff the bottom of the piston since it expands into a water
> cooled (constant diameter) cylinder wall. Once you do that you get
> aluminum all over the bottom end of the cylinder and you are setting
> yourself up for a complete seizure. I old Gil that the night before
> he died. But Gil went out and flew over trees the next day. Why
> would he do that? Why would Allen fly over wires when he's had some
> problems with his engine just prior to the thing killing him.
>
> Not me. You wouldn't have caught me in these without tearing them
> down to inspect them.
>
> I think there were/are lots of problems with the parts on the Mini-500
> as I've said for years. They wear out too soon. They are not like
> the Robinson helicopter parts that are proven over and over to 2000
> hours or 10 million cycles. But, with that in mind, why would anyone
> fly an Exec 162 over wires or over trees when they are made out of the
> same NON-helicopter, NON-certified components? I don't get it.
>
> I've killfiled fetters long ago, but someone will tell him of this
> thread an I'm sure that he will have his 2 cents to say too.
>
> BWB
>
>

[Badwater Bill]

>I agree that "Certification" should buy some reliability over non certified
>parts, but there is no real guarantee.
>BTW I self taught in a Benson Gyrocopter in the 60's (no dual was available)
>So did my wife. We never bent anything or scratched a blade. The ship is
>as safe as the pilot is proficient and aware of the limits.

Man, you got that right. Keep your head and do it with baby steps and
the probability is that you'll make it. I fly my gyro all the time
and it's a Snobird pusher with the thrust line well above the CG. I
just keep my hand on the throttle and tell myself "Power is
destablizing...get the throttle off if she bucks on you." I ain't
dead yet, but that doesn't mean that it won't kill me if I do
something stupid.

BWB



>
>Stu Fields
>"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>

[Stu]

I have always liked the Snowbird. I got a picture at the PRA fly-in of one
in the air which looked exactly like a good air-to-air shot. I was standing
on the ground but the clouds in the background and an extreme amount of luck
produced a cover photo for the PRA magazine. If I ever lose my medical, I'm
going back to an ultra lite gyro that has just made it's appearance: The
Butterfly by Larry Neal. I watched him (no lite weight) put on a good show
and he said he never got beyond 1/2 throttle. He is quite religious and I
believe him. Larry is also the test pilot for the Carter Copter.
Stu Fields
"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I agree that "Certification" should buy some reliability over non
certified
> >parts, but there is no real guarantee.
> >BTW I self taught in a Benson Gyrocopter in the 60's (no dual was
available)
> >So did my wife. We never bent anything or scratched a blade. The ship
is
> >as safe as the pilot is proficient and aware of the limits.
>
> Man, you got that right. Keep your head and do it with baby steps and
> the probability is that you'll make it. I fly my gyro all the time
> and it's a Snobird pusher with the thrust line well above the CG. I
> just keep my hand on the throttle and tell myself "Power is
> destablizing...get the throttle off if she bucks on you." I ain't
> dead yet, but that doesn't mean that it won't kill me if I do
> something stupid.
>
> BWB
>
>
>
> >
> >Stu Fields
> >"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>

[Felger Carbon]

"Badwater Bill" > wrote in message
...
>
> (snip)
>
> I ain't dead yet, but that doesn't mean that it won't kill
> me if I do something stupid.

BWB, I'm glad you think the R-22 is a safer rotary wing aircraft than
some others. But today's FAA accident summary, with 14 entries,
included two for the R-22, one fatal and the other merely serious
injury. ;-(

[Ken Sandyeggo]

(Badwater Bill) wrote in message >...
> >
> >True. If you have to fly rotary-wing, a gyro is simpler. However there
> >have been an absolutely amazing panoply of fatals in those. Most of
> >them totally preventable.
>
> It's mostly due to the tucking since the center of thrust is above the
> CG and the drag component of the rotor system is way above the CG.
> When you do a negative g pushover or even hit a bump that does the
> same thing, you take away the drag. The thrust dumps you over in a
> tuck.

Bill, hope you didn't mean ALL gyros. My Groen converted gyro is
centerline thrust and their new kit will also be CLT. Air Command
also has a CLT ship. You are correct if you meant almost all gyro
fatalities are in those gyros with a high thrustline. RAF is one of
the worse and they still don't see the need for a horizontal stab....a
"contraption" according to Don LaFleur.

Ken J. - SDCA

[Stu Fields]

Ken: I got a ride in the "SparrowHawk prototype" at Arlington. (I believe
it was a Groen modified RAF) I was told that the real SparrowHawk would
have a bigger fuselage and more room. I couldn't tell if my feet were on
the rudders or not. The bird seemed to get in the air nice enough and when
I got the controls, I still couldn't feel the pedals so I just flew it
around with the stick. Boy!! I've got time in a few stick control
aircraft, Benson, Aeronca, T-34,T38, Safari, Bell 47, Brantly B2B, and flown
the Carter Copter simulator, but I've never felt a stick control like that.
It felt like the coil springs from a car were in series with the cyclic.
The ship responded but it felt like I had put an order into a massive
weighty servo system. I didn't have much feel of the stick causing the bank
rates. The Bell 47 with a crusty hydraulic cyclic boost has better control
feel. We did encounter a good thermal and the ship just rose smoothly like
an elevator without any interference from the pilot. Also power changes
didn't seem to cause any pitch disturbance. But boy!! what a stiff control
feeling. I got on the ground and crawled into a stock RAF and the pedals on
that thing setting on the ground required more pressure than anything I've
ever flown. I don't understand the requirement for such high control forces
in such a small aircraft. If the RAFs are all like this I can understand
why it was causing some students problems. With or without the HS and
center line thrust.

Stu Fields

"Ken Sandyeggo" > wrote in message
om...
> (Badwater Bill) wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > >True. If you have to fly rotary-wing, a gyro is simpler. However there
> > >have been an absolutely amazing panoply of fatals in those. Most of
> > >them totally preventable.
> >
> > It's mostly due to the tucking since the center of thrust is above the
> > CG and the drag component of the rotor system is way above the CG.
> > When you do a negative g pushover or even hit a bump that does the
> > same thing, you take away the drag. The thrust dumps you over in a
> > tuck.
>
> Bill, hope you didn't mean ALL gyros. My Groen converted gyro is
> centerline thrust and their new kit will also be CLT. Air Command
> also has a CLT ship. You are correct if you meant almost all gyro
> fatalities are in those gyros with a high thrustline. RAF is one of
> the worse and they still don't see the need for a horizontal stab....a
> "contraption" according to Don LaFleur.
>
> Ken J. - SDCA

[Badwater Bill]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 04:28:21 GMT, wrote:

>Bill:
>I noticed last year at OSH that Rotax changed the head design on the
>582 to recirculate the water through the head and block until the
>thermostat opens. I have noticed the dip(s) in water temperature as
>the engine warms up on several Mini 500's. Since the sensor is in the
>head and the sensor has high thermal mass who knows what the
>temperature dip was at the base of the cylinder where the cold water
>inlet is.
>Fetters had a lot of design screw ups but this one appears to be
>Rotax's which Rotax has fixed.
>John

The main design scew up that fetters had in my opinion (engine-wise)
was using the Rotax 582 at all.

Bill

[Badwater Bill]

>
>Bill, hope you didn't mean ALL gyros. My Groen converted gyro is
>centerline thrust and their new kit will also be CLT. Air Command
>also has a CLT ship. You are correct if you meant almost all gyro
>fatalities are in those gyros with a high thrustline. RAF is one of
>the worse and they still don't see the need for a horizontal stab....a
>"contraption" according to Don LaFleur.
>
>Ken J. - SDCA

Sure. That's what I meant. I know the problem is with the hight
thrust line. The CLT gyros are probably some of the most stable and
safe flying machines ever built.

BWB