Pulsar with a turbine?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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
.. .

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
.. .

"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. ;-(