Pulsar with a turbine?

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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)

(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

"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.

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.