Affordable helicopter?

[Hoss-Fly]

Howdy all,<br>I've been keeping an eye on the kit helicopter market for a long time. &nbsp;Either I'm a cheap SOB or do you all think that the current line up of kits available are far too expensive for what they are?<br><br>Anyone got an update on A/W-95?<br><br>Fly Army,<br><br>Vince Rodgers<br>

[CLS447]

If you can handle a single place, what's wrong with the HELICYCLE?

[Fiesty]

Hoss-Fly-<br><br>I have been thinking about a cheap helicopter in comparsion to others.<br><br>You need to get rid of the expensive transmission and the power absorbing tail rotor.<br><br>Lets try this by mounting the engine (2cylinder horziontal) *mounted on bottom of the mast with a ducted four blade Propeller(fan) on propeller shaft. *The propeller and hub should weigh the same as the engine to cancel gyroscopic forces. *This would do away with clutch, free wheeling clutch, cooling fan,tail rotor and its drive. **The fuel tank *feed could be thru slip rings on mast. &nbsp;You would get lift from rotor and propeller. ::)<br><br>I plan on building an RC model of this configuration as an experiment.<br>Randy Brooks

[tom_olsen]

Randy,

This may be an old topic but let's see if we can generate some more interest in this. I have been looking for an affordable and safe single place heli design. There is an abundance of junk out there. Since momma didn't raise any dummies, they won't be getting any of my money. I'm convinced there are ways of building with economy and safety if you're willing to put in the time to shop around. Starting with a good design, do you know of any? The A/W-95 looks reasonable but I can't get a reply from Vortech on design options such as pre-fabbed blades. Have you found anything since the first post?

[Fiesty]

Tom:
No I have not found any thing after the orginal post. Rotorway looks the best of any. Very expensive. There are a few of the older Scorpions available in the 12 to 20,000 bracket.

Randy :o

[tom_olsen]

Does anyone know of the mini-1 copter?

On the A/W 95, it looks like some in the PRA tout it as the only real UL heli plan. Somewhere I heard it used home made blades, not something I want to stake my life on. Has anyone actually bought a set of plans? I'm curious as to the detail. For the price I would expect some decent documentation.

Finally, in spite of all the advertisement and talk, I have yet to hear from anyone that has actually built a heli from plans. Kits seem to be another story but, like you say, the price is enough to kill enthusiasm. ;)

[quadrirotor]

I am convinced that a two-place heli could be built for the same price as the price of a two place gyro; but i you are interested in one seat heli, the a/w 95 is a good choice...

[Spaced]

Why are helos so expensive? Cause they have so many parts.
Flight controls, transmitions, extra parts, all add up to make them one expensive way to get around, but a very fun way.
I would have to differ with quadrirotor on the statement the you could build one for the same price as a gyro, as the differences are quite marked.
One thing that seems to make the price higher is the cost of certified machines. Anything certified will start at $350,00AUD, and go up from there. Im not sure of the kit prices, but the only one available in Aus seems to be the exec.
THere is a cheap one $30,000US found herehttp://www.innovatortech.ca/index.htm.
One thing that troubles me personally is the flying qualities of the kit helos available. The only two I would even consider palcing my but in would be the Helicycle, and the Rotor mouse.
Everything else I have seen have serious design issues, from power limitations, bad drive train design, or improper balacing. Any helo that requires a balast weight to bring the helo within CG limits, in my opinion was not properly designed.
This is one of the reasons I have set out to design my own. I have purposely made it different in a number of areas, which should make it safer than many certified helos.
Will my design end up cheaper than whats around now, only time will tell. One thing that will be in my foavour is the Aussie dollar being weaker than most of the currencies, may help to keep the cost down.
ANyway thats the end of my rant.
I must say its great to find a forum where homebuilt helos are discussed. So far its the only one Ive been able to find.

[quadrirotor]

I agree with you, spaced, the price of a machine is directly linked to the number of parts, complexity of the parts, price of exotic materials and the quota of the R&amp;D involved in the design.
The number of parts in the Safari is not really bigger or more complex than the one of the RAF2000...The biggest part of the cost is the R&amp;D for a commercial product and the number of AV-certified parts.

it's actually very interesting to have someone building an heli and posting on this forum: can you give more info on your design, why is it so special, may be you could have free advices... :) ???

http://www.lafhelicopters.com/

[Spaced]

I cant comment on the complexity of the RAF2000, but I imagine for one that the control system would be more complex.
Another factor with helos is the nature of the gearbox. With a Gyro you can have a realatively simple PSRU, while a helo has to have a step down for the MR, and a 90deg drive for the TR (asuming it has one). A helo also requires a free wheeling clutch, so it can auto if required.
Every time a &quot;cheap helo&quot; comes onto the market a spate of accidents seem to follow. Remember the mini 500? Alot of people died while that got sorted out. This isnt just reseved for experimental helos though, early on a R22 was the most dangerous thing trying to stay in the air. The A-Star early on was known as the Death star, or falling star, and Bells having its fair share of probs with the 407.
Helos are so complex, from the aero, to the maufacture, there are so many variables.
One only has to look at the progress made over the last 50 years, while the Wright Brothers would have troulbe believing a 747, or a long ease, Igor Sikorsky would have no trouble understanding a modern helo.
Some aspects of my helo Im happy to talk about, other aspects I may have case for patents, so if discussed I will be unable to patent the idea.
In general, I believe that the helos traditional layouts is one of its down falls. The TR absorbs power from the MR (upto 15%). Ontop of that most helos are built with rediculously low margins on TR authority. This can lead to a loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE), and has caused fatalities over the years. Another problem is with the MR chopping off the tail boom. While a helo can be controlled in flight without a TR, the change in CG can cause a nose down crash.
Basically my helo is a Co-axial layout (counter rotating blades ontop of each other ). For one this gives the advantage of neutral hadeling when power is applied. The cancelation of torque by the rotors means that the helicopter is more stable, and predictable and easier to fly.
Antother thing Im looking at is adding a ducted fan to the rear to add thrust in forward flight offloading the main rotor.
I havent finished the calcs yet, but I believe that by having the blades auto roating in forward flight, should increase the blade life.
My goal is to produce an experimental high speed helo. The goal is a cruise of around 150knts. Its pretty ambitious, but so far I havent hit any major snags.
I could add more but im getting sick of typing, any questions just ask.
quadrirotor, are you involved with the laf helicopters?

[quadrirotor]

I am not involved in the lafheli. I follow the news because i rest near R. Laflamme.

site to analyse:

http://www.enae.umd.edu/AGRC/Design99/Calvert.html

The gyrodyne of the Maryland university:

[Spaced]

Yeh Ive seen both of those.
Dave is the man behind the unicopter and a regular at one of the sites I visit. I like the concept, and he has a lot of good ideas. His site is a wealth of information. I hope he can get one built.
The Maryland project was very interesting, I stumbled across that a while ago while I was doing some research.
It is a very thorough report, and learnt alot from it. Shame its only a study and more than likely will never fly.
While Im a big fan of the synchro copter layout, I beleive it has one major draw back, ground clearance for the rotor tips.
While in the air it has a lot of advantages, on the ground its more dangerous than the traditional MR TR layout.
If you have ever seen a K-Max on the ground you will know what I mean. The mast is nearly 4m off the ground, and with the rotors running, on flat ground, you still wouldnt be able to approach from the side.
Early on this was my preferred layout, after moving on from a side by side layout. Unfortuately I couldnt find a way to make it safe on the ground.
This is why I moved to the coax layout. I feel this has the most to offer while being the safest on the ground.

[quadrirotor]

The coax heli has some drawbacks too!... In autorotation you must inverse the inputs in the commands!...High speed is tricky!... the head is awfully complex etc...too complex to be reliable enough for homebuilt heli. why don't you try a safari alike heli (with tandem seating and subaru engine etc...)?

http://www.airscooter.com/

[PTKay]

I am also very much for a coax solution.

Does anybody know what happend to the Nolan Bros
Eagle's Perch Heli. The web site was always very scarse,
and no news about it since some time.

It looks like the idea has been revived in AirScooter.

http://www.airscooter.com/

The solution is simple gimbal rotorhead, not so complex, no swashplates.
Almost as simple as gyro controls, but how (and if) it works...?

I think the similar solution was used on Sikorsky S-69 (XH59A) ABC.

Anybody has any news about such helis?

PTKay

[Spaced]

quadrirotor, yes the coax is more complex in some areas, and simpler in others.
The Synchro copter suffers from the same problem with control reversal in autorotation also. With the K-Max and the Huskie, the pilot is required to apply opposite pedal, in the Kamov helicopters, the controls reverse themselves in auto.
The synchro copter has some disavantages in yaw over the coax. The synchro copter acheives yaw through differential longitudinal cyclic (with a small amount of diff collective). Due to the position of the disks being very close, and the fuselage limiting the amount of travel available, the yaw control is a little mushy. This is especially true in an auto.
The coax layout acheives yaw through diff collective which under power is much more effective.
Most of the objections I have heard and read about the coax layout, for me havent held alot of water. While they are there, most of them I have been able to over come (atleast theoretically).
I have designed a new layout for the gear box, and a better method for yaw control (actually the yaw control is an old idea Ive revamped).
Unfortuantely not being a real engineer Ill have to pay some one to do the final design and spec on the gear box, but the people Ive spoken with have seen no problem so far.
I should mention that Im not really looking to put out a budget heli. Im looking at a high speed VTOL ship with a high degree of built in safety, on ground and in the air.
While I personally enjoy the challenges of flying a MR TR helo, There are alot of people, who wont have the coordination requred to enjoy it.
My goal is to have a ship which is easy to fly and stable, with a small HV curve and good redundancy. While Im sure this is the goal of most designers, I see very few who are actively pursuing this goal.
Most designers seem content with the MR TR layout, and leave it at that, and get the best from there. THis is one of the reasons I have chosen the different layout.
THere have been a number of inovative designs over the years, which had they seen fruition, we would be looking at a different helo market today.
Its a shame that the experimental helo market hasnt yet flourished in the same way the experimental fixed wing market has. Designs like the Mini 500, seem to have kept people away from the market. And really who can blame them, as yet, the only design I would trust my life to would be the heli cycle.
It always surprises me what people are prepared to put up with in aircraft, things they would never put op with in a car. Little things like the placement of switches, through to bad flight characteristics in certain areas, LTE springs to mind.
Whether my design will ever see the light of day, Im not sure, Im just about ready to start building my first scale prototype, so hope fully Ill star to get some idea of flight characteristis soon.
&lt;end rant&gt;


PTKay, Im not a big fan of the airscooter for a couple of reasons. THe first being there is no collective pitch control. Rotor thrust is controlled via throttle to fixed pitch blades. This means the aircraft is limited to 50ft AGL, other wise engine out landing becomes impossible.
While the gimble Idea offers simplicity, its only practical for light helos. AFAIK some early helos used this system, but even for something as light as a R22 the control loads become very high.THis is why nearly every helo uses the cyclic control for pitch and roll.
The S-69 didnt use a gimbal system. It used a cyclic system, on ridgid rotor blades. A ridgid blade has no flap, or lead/lag hinges, only feathering. There are a few helos with this set up, some of these are the BK117, Bo105,and Lynx.
THe ABC was aimed at 2 different military contracts, however they decided thye wanted a tilt rotor instead. The 2 aircraft are in storage, however some critical components have exceeded their time, so more than likely they wont fly again.
The unicopter site has some good info on it, under the ABC section. (theres a link posted by quadrirotor a couple of posts up).

[quadrirotor]

Can we have some kind a device which could lower, automatically, the pitch of the blades if there is no torque on the power mast (for autorotation purpose and simpler tilted rotor head)?

[PTKay]

I have had the same idea to overcome the shortages of the
AirScooter. Such device to create collective pitch in reaction
to engine power shouldn't be too complicated.

Regarding the high forces on gimbal rotor, I think the
Eagle's Perch used hydraulic conrols to solve the problem.

BTW, again, does anybody know what happened
to this project.

The other interesting coax solution was (is) the Gyrodyne.

PTKay

[PTKay]

Eagel's Perch

[PTKay]

Another Eagle's Perch

[quadrirotor]

I think they left the homebuilt market to make RPV and SAH (remotely piloted vehicules and small autonomous helicopter) for the army!...They use the same concept to make small helicopters (spy, target, weapon...)

[Spaced]

If they have gone off to make a UAV, that will make another good kit chopper off the market. The Rinke Aerospace JAG looked like it was going to be a revolution, now its going to be military only.
As far as modifing the airscooter it maybe possible but there are some probs to overcome. The main one would be the changing pitching moment of the blades. Off memory the blades are highly cambered. So wile the pitching moment is stable over a wide range of speeds, it may not be over a wide range AOA.

[quadrirotor]

That's a lot of research and dev.; it seems to me the simpler way to have an affordable heli off the ground is to modify the Safari heli to have a tandem seating, with a nascar differential as a transmission and a Subaru engine, you keep the blades and the head; may be you could use an electric engine for the TR...

http://www.aviationtomorrow.com/

http://www.waitman.com/products.html

http://www.markwilliams.com/

from:
http://www.lafhelicopters.com/

[quadrirotor]

electric motor which could be coupled with a torque sensor located on the mast!

[PTKay]

BTW, did you know, that this VIKI heli is based on GYRODYNE
rotor system. Well developed and manufactured in 100s.

Recently used also on German Navy Drones.

PTKay

[quadrirotor]

If you need complexity!

[PTKay]

I just mentioned Gyrodyne, as you can see my first choice was AirScooter or Eagle's Perch.

As simple as Gyro.

But some claim, not as safe as gyro....

So let's keep looking for affordable heli ;)

PTKay

[quadrirotor]

even more complex!

[Rotor Rooter]

Here are a couple of other sites that may be of interest. One old, one new.

http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/landgraf-r.html
http://www.ezycopter.com./


quadrirotor,

Can you supply any more info on the Yellow Bird?

[PTKay]

The AirScooter being dangerous without posibility to autorotate...??

Maybe this is a solution, skewed pin blade.

When powered it sets an &quot;in flight&quot; pitch, by power failure
it automatically sets back to autorotation blade pitch.

Nice solution ?

We discussed it in case of gyros in the FrenchRotor topic
on the Rotorcraft forum.

PTKay

[quadrirotor]

If you use this device for helio, you must review the angle of the articulation! the take off must be done on wheels at a horizontal speed enables a safe autorotate landing...
Otherwise, with this kind of device you widden the &quot;dead man zone&quot; because you can not land with the inertia of the rotor...but to be used with a VSTOL powered compound helio-gyro, this idea must be kept to be digged out!...

[gyroblackwell]

That a nice picture of Glenn's gyroplane! He keeps it at his museum here in Mentone. I like the rotor pitch design, and when he re-designs it , I hope to add it to my tractor-gyro design.

Tim

[Fiesty]

The machines look like the Kellets. Airforce used them for fire fighters

Randy

[HELI496]

:D Hi Randy
I am Manuel Diaz from Puerto Rico I own an Ultrasport 496 that I won a bid on e-bay for a very reasonable price maybe you can check this option or check for aerotradeonline.com there are also some new semi builded or completed heli at a very good price
I personaly dont like the rotorway due to the many belts involved on their system but they have more than 800 sold ???? many working all right and can be on the $15,000 price tag
There is the mosquito heli $18,000 I suggest you buy the video of this and others to check them better I did it this and gave me a better idea of the options
the helicycle is now turbine that should be an excelent option but price is $35,000 +-
Hope this gets you a better idea
Manolo

[HELI496]

::)ops I think I made a mistake of names the previous should be to Vince instead of Randy sorry
Manuel Diaz

[birdy]

Not trying to be cheeky by any means ,but you blokes have answered me question befor I asked it.
Have been concidering a kit chopper for a while to replace me gyro,but with all that complexity and marginal power ,I might wait a while longer to replace me mustering steed.
Correct me please ,if I'v got it wrong.

[Gordon Gibson]

Yeah Birdy, stick with your trusty gyro Bro, if you did want a heli for mustering you would be way better off to go to a Robbie.
Maybe hard to believe but anything in the kit scene will still probably need 1 hour tinkering for every hour flying, especially the way you need to fly to get the 'cows' in.

By the way, you spend a hell of a lot of time on this forum, how do you fit any flying in ever? :D :D
Cheers, Gordon. (baaa-aaa-aa)

[birdy]

Gordon
The reason I'm leav'n so much dribble on this forum is ,this is the slack time of the year here,but it will be full on in a couple o weeks,back to the boring old job of chasing cows again.[poor bugger me,I'm work'n hardest when I'm flying hardest.]

I don't think I'll ever get a Robbo,talki'n to the heliemuster blokes,there are plenty of times they are on the power limit on hot days.

What about the CH7 914 ,or what ever they call it ???Wouldn't that machine have plenty of snot.??

[Gordon Gibson]

Yeah Birdy,

The CH7 is one chopper out of all the kit jobs that would have enough beans to do the job I reckon. I am talking about the 'Kompress' as they call it, the one that can take two people but not dual control. Guess you know the thing.

They are now being marketed by Lance Neibauer's company - he is the originator of the Lancair kit planes, very high tech and very popular so it follows that anything they did with a chopper would be good. BUT BUT BUT will it be reliable enough to take out to work mustering every day?? I would not put too much money on that. Maybe OK for sport flying, especially if you cart it around on a trailer for the long trips, but full-on bull chasing, I doubt it.
If there is anyone out there who can prove me wrong on this, I would just love to eat humble pie!

Thanks, Gordon Gibson.

Stick to the gyro Birdy. ;)

[birdy]

Thanx for the tips Gib mate.
Yeh, I reckon the CH7 is a well built machine,not to mention slick and horny.But I gess it is made as a toy not a tool,and should be respected as such.

The best thing about the gyro is when you get in a tight spot, you can load the rotors with out fear of overloading them.I'm not real keen on a machine that sooks out when you need power the most.

[Blll]

Here's an idea...

Rather than the added weight and mechanical complexity of having a helicopter system that can autorotate....rig up a way to ditch the blades/rotor head (explosive bolts?) when the stuff hits the fan and rocket off one of those ballistic recovery chutes...those things seem to be pretty light and reliable when they are used....

sure, there will be situations when a helicopter is in the wrong place at the wrong time and a BRS wont help....but there are plenty of situations where autorotating wont help any either ....and even the situations where you supposedly can safely autorotate assume you can do the autorotation correctly ---not easy in a lightweight helicopter....AND you have a place safe enough to autorotate down to in the first place....

My biggest fear about designing and building a helicopter wouldnt be the mechanics or aerodynamics.....it would be the mechanical dynamics and fatigue/strength issues...and if your helicopter flys apart or your control system breaks when its airborne only a BRS would help you there....

I might even take the stand that if you focused mostly on insuring that your engine never overheated, sputtered, or seized and you counted on a BRS to cover other contigencys you might end up with safer small helicopter than if you count on autorotation to save you butt should anything bad happen...

just an idea

take care

Blll

[Rotor Rooter]

The May 2004 issue of Kitplanes has an article entitled; 'Flying the Mosquito: Maximum fun at minimal cost'

Economical? ~ The kit helicopters sells for $19.000.00 (US).
Reliable? ~ The positive article is written by Ken Armstrong. He has flown 12,000 hours on 250 airplane and helicopter types, and is a prominent Canadian aviation author whose works are regularly published in a number of aviation periodicals.

[rfonseca]

Are any BRS parachute system for Gyros?

[Gordon Gibson]

I think Larry Neil had one mounted on the underside of a tandem Air Command a couple of years ago.
Bet it would be a heck of an experience to pull that handle! though I guess it might be better pulling the handle (if you had it) than not having anything to pull at all!

Thanks, Gordon Gibson.

[birdy]

Not sure a BRS would work too good at less than 50' ,would it??

Oi,Rotor Rooter,what did this Ken bloke do in his choppers??

I'm not say'n they is no good,just tryi'n to find out if there is any advantage over a gyro with one of these horny look'n wirly birds for chase'n cows.

[Blll]

Birdy....

Thats true...a BRS most likely wouldnt work at 50 feet...but consider this.....because of that large rotor above you...if you had a brs installed you would probably want it to fire outwards in a sideways/downwards/backwards direction and (at first at least) you would probably want the gyro body to naturally hang from near its center of mass UPSIDE down from the parachute...

Now, if something really bad happens at low altitude in a gyro....ie you loose a blade/rotor, blade flap chopped of the back end of your gyro, a negative G manuever, exploding engine/propeller, a control mechanism breaks etc.... about the ONLY thing thats going to save you is shear dumb luck...and large amounts of it at that ...in those cases pilot skill and/or a personal parachute wont help much either.....

As a previous poster mentioned...using a BRS would be one wild ride.....you bet it would...but if something bad enough has happened to cause you want to use it....youve probably ALREADY had one wild ride and the only choice left is between a wild ride that ends in death and one that might not....

Now, you could use a personal emergency parachute instead.....and those weigh 10 pounds give or take or a BRS which would be about 25 lbs....however there are 3 considerations that might favor the BRS over the personal chute....one, if your gyro is doing wild things, getting out of it fast and without injury might not be as safe or as easy as one might think at first...secondly, because a rocket deploys the BRS chute and makes the connection line taunt, a BRS will work when deployed ALOT closer to the ground than a personal chute....if I recall correctly there have been about 200 "saves" in small planes and ultralights using BRS to date....some of them at altitudes of only a few hundred feet....as opposed to the 500 to 1000? foot minimum required for using a personal chute ....and then there is the issue of how long is that packed personal chute safe before it needs repacking? A BRS can go 5 or 6 years...I have no idea on what it is for a personal chute but I bet its a lot less than that.....

I think Craig Wall used to harp on this...doing anything close to ground in a gryo that doesnt NEED to be done there is just plain stupid (and that goes for airplanes as well).....Ironically, I get the impression that many gyro pilots fly low because low "feels" safer and they want to feel safe because its an experimental aircraft with a less than a 100 percent reliable engine....when in reality flying high makes it SAFER, not more dangerous....

Given that how a BRS should be installed and used in a gryo doesnt appear to have been carefully investigated yet....its my opinion that gyro pilots would be vastly more safer flying 1500 foot or so high as much as possible and wearing personal chute...

But thats just my inexperienced opinion

take care

Bll

[Chad]

birdy,
here ya go

http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.htm

They seem to suggest not flying above '50.

[birdy]

Yeh Chad,I checked them things out before,but I'm not real keen on the rubber band driv'n the rotors,same reason I changed from the EJ22 to a 914 on the RAF,too many rubber bands.

[H.LECTOR]

We finally meet :eek:

[KenSandyEggo]

Birdy, what is the performance difference between the Soob and the Rotax? Is it very noticeable?

[birdy]

Ken,I can only speak from my own experiance in the local conditions[I'm not what you could call a worldly person]but the major benifit is the power to weight ratio,which is everything here.The 80hp 912 has served me well,1500+ hours without so much as a cough or fart and is still going strong,never used oil,never runs hot[even on a 48c day].The only mod I had to make to the standard unit was to desigen a perminent carb heater,ice was a constant problem,summer and winter.
Efficiancy is another benifit,being able to stay aloft for 2 3/4 -3 hours safly on 40l helps while mustering.
In short,I'd never go back to a soob.

Bloody Lector has found me!!! I'm in trouble now.

[Spaced]

Birdy, dont know how youd go with a heli. I can see where they would come in handy, but I think you may find the cost difference a bit prohibative.
Not having much personal experience with gyros I speculating a little here but I dont imagine your DOCs would go much over $50/hr. Compare that with a robbie at around $150/hr and your cows might go a bit hungry. Most of the cost is in the difference between certified and experimental aircraft, but also helos are just expensive.
From what Ive heard there are a few operators who recoup this cost by pulling the hobbs, and not documenting hrs flown. Other guys Ive spoken to say the robbie is pretty much on its limits all the time, and they frequently "milk" the throttle upto 117% to get it off the ground (RPM limit 104%), although Im sure the helimuster guys would have told you this, (Disclaimer, Im in no way saying helimuster does any of this, from what Ive heard they are a very reputable comapny, and the reference to them here was to do with the limited power of the helos only).
If you are thinking about an experimental helo the only two I would think about getting would be either the helicycle, or the rotormouse. The helicycle uses a t-62 solar turbine, and has a power to weight ration of 7:1, which is the equivilent of an MD500. The rotormouse is a little harder to find info on, because they dont have a website, but uses a allison C-18, and has a Vne of 200mph!!!!
Pic of rotormouse,
http://www.russian.ee/~star/vertigo/foto/hillberg_rotormouse.jpg
and heres the helicycle,
http://www.russian.ee/~star/vertigo/foto/little_helicycle.jpg
Dont know exact prices for them but I would think that youd be looking around the $100,000 mark.

[Chad]

Spaced,
What about the Baby Belle (Safari)? Any good? I think they are 'bout 100k.

[Spaced]

I have no personal experience with them, however I have heard they get a 2per rev vibration under certain conditions. THe couple of people I spoke with havent manage to get rid of it yet. Apart from that they seem pretty happy with it, I guess it depends on what youre after.
I beleive most of the expense in the baby belle is in the certified motor that they use.
Its really disappointing to me that despite the sucess of experimental fixed wing, experimental helos seem to be lacking, and all the really promising ones seem to dissapear.
Right now if you sit down and analyse ityou can pick up a 2nd hand 22 with 500hrs to run for about $150,000AUD, if you just run the hrs off without putting aside the money for a 2200hr overhaul you could probably get the runnung costs down to about $60/hr. With no hrs left the hull would still be worth $60K, and you could then go looking for another one to do the same thing.
This would give you a certified helo for a similar cost to a experiemntal.

[birdy]

Thanx for that Spaceman.
The expence isn't so much an issue when doing this sort of work,it can be warrented,but the complications of certification,hour limits and all the rest of it makes the gyro stand way out in frount.The only compromise is the inability to hover,and there are ways and means to get around this in a gyro.
Besides,me cows can't do 200mph.

And yes,in this part of the world the R22 can get dangerously margional on power,ask anyone who has mustered on a 48c day in one.

[Rotor Rooter]

How come there hasn't been more discussion of the Mosquito on this thread; particularly the new version?

http://www.innovatortech.ca/index.htm

[Victor Duarte]

Hi every one

i am a friendly chopper enthusiast from France . excuse my bad english, i try my best ;)

like you, Spaced, i am designing a personnal helicopter and think also in a coax layout, i had helpfull recommendations in www.eng-tips.com forums, and i guess i ll find many ones here.

you told about a good rotor and yaw control scheme, have you a link to that ?

i also know the remarkable work done on UNICOPTER site, great and full of good tech data.

if you want you can check some scketches drawing at
http://zeeoo.free.fr/helico/

thanks for your comments.

victor

[quadrirotor]

salut et bienvenue;
Try this one:
http://www.ezycopter.com./

[Victor Duarte]

salut et merci de l'accueil !

i visited this site and was impressed and scared ;) about the rotor ..
massive..

have you heard more about that?

thanks et merci

victor

[Helidev II]

zeeoo, I am Spaced, I changed my name to match my new business name.

That ezycopter is a modified Gyrondyne XRON. Basically its the same as the DASH 50 that Andre posted on page 2. By all accounts a good helo that never went into production. For a while I was considering approaching gyrodyne to buy their design, just never got around to it. I had been following the guys building it, but lost track, thanx for the new link. Is it just me or does that mast, swash plate seem massivley over engineered for a 1 person machine?

zeeoo, yes I do have a design for good yaw control for a coax, however I would prefer not to post them on a public forum. email me at helidev@yahoo.com, and Ill give you an idea of my design.

I must say though Ive gone off the coax design a little at the moment. Theres alot of complex mechanical peices on it, which only increases the cost, where as Im trying to reduce it. Not being an aero engineer and being self taught definately has its drawbacks.
I will be interested in how your design comes out zeeoo, if its anything like mine it will be very fluid.

[Victor Duarte]

hey Helidev, glad to find you here !

mmm .... i thought the spaced guy looked like someone i already saw some where ;)

i m just like you, not an aero eng, but i have a quite acceptable technical back ground a i am drawing, thinking about it for about 10 years.. by periods.

about Dash > yes i think i ts a good machine, note that all the UAV i ve seen are coax ones.. i know a guy in france, not far from my home that develops a half scale coax drone for surveying a big bridge built in MILLAU (search "viaduc de millau" on the net)
we talked about that several times, and i heard the first prototype was ready... more news to come..

about easycopter, yeah, i feel the rotor head is over-complicated, i dont think this way, many eng think "we must put that device here, lets put it and fit it" i think "those devices could certainly be simplified" specially in a small helico, i m not talking for big ones.. i try to imagine smart and acceptable solutions.

i am convinced that we can simplify some designs, as we have elastomeric materials for damping/bearing, autolube polymeric bearings, we know more about the use of flexible metal parts instead of fully engineered hinges.

i would be glad to exchange ideas and hear about yours.. my mail is zeeoo@free.fr

my (temporarly) site is http://zeeoo.free.fr/helico/ some more drawings will be added soon.

friendly thanks

victor

[Eagle Aviation]

I am also very much for a coax solution.

Does anybody know what happend to the Nolan Bros
Eagle's Perch Heli. The web site was always very scarse,
and no news about it since some time.

It looks like the idea has been revived in AirScooter.

http://www.airscooter.com/

The solution is simple gimbal rotorhead, not so complex, no swashplates.
Almost as simple as gyro controls, but how (and if) it works...?

I think the similar solution was used on Sikorsky S-69 (XH59A) ABC.

Anybody has any news about such helis?

PTKay
I know what happened to the Nolans kits. It was purchased by my corporation. We currently own the patent rights to the kit now known as the Eagle's Perch (as you are probably aware). We are still selling the kit, although we are also focusing on the UAV market. You can check out our website to see what we have done, www.eagleaviationtech.com. The Eagle's Perch is currently selling at $18,995.00USD without the engines (two for safety- no autorotation) and electronics. Usually once you add these components pricing ranges between $29,000-$31,000.00 USD.

Thought you would be interested in knowing!
Thanks
Mia
Eagle Aviation Technologies, Inc
www.eagleaviationtech.com

[Eagle Aviation]

Hello,
If you are interested in Prefab blades, my corporation sells the :

HELICOPTER MAIN ROTOR BLADE SETS: NACA 0012 AIRFOIL
4.0” chord main rotor blades, 6’ length: $675/set

ASYMMETRICAL MAIN ROTOR BLADE SETS: 8-H-12 AIRFOIL
(used for both gyroplanes and helicopters)
4.75” chord main rotor blades, 9’ length: $850/set

These blades were once marketed by vortech. We sell the blank blade sets and tip caps.

www.eagleaviationtech.com - under products and rotor blades.

Thanks
Mia

[Eagle Aviation]

You may want to check out our product as well. If you are not already familiar with it the Eagle's Perch. Very simple design and has been flying successfully!
www.eagleaviationtech.com.

Mia

[Eagle Aviation]

Hello, my corporation was involved with the design and fabrication of the AirScooter, the reason you can't fly above 50' is because it is in the Ultralight weight class, which restricts weight and ceiling height.

Thanks
Mia
www.eagleaviationtech.com

[KenSandyEggo]

Wow, Mia. Your company is certainly versatile.....from blades to keep us pip-squeek gyro-heads in the air to slick government contracts. I just glanced at your site for now, but will take a better look later.

[Kevin_Richey]

Hello, my corporation was involved with the design and fabrication of the AirScooter, the reason you can't fly above 50' is because it is in the Ultralight weight class, which restricts weight and ceiling height.

Thanks
Mia
www.eagleaviationtech.com


Interesting....this is the first that I have heard of a 50' heighth limit for ultralights...hmmmmmmmmmm.

[Victor Duarte]

Right ken, sounds strange, i think, correct me mr eagle if i'm wrong, but it is more because of the coax rotorhead design no ? I readed they have a fixed pitch so the lift is controled by the engines , that could explain the low ceiling..
right or wrong please ?
thanks

[skyguynca]

HMMMM, there is no height restriction on ultralight helicopters, there is also no speed restriction for ultralight helicopters as there is for ultralight fixed wing due to the power needed to hover gives a higher speed than allowed in FAR part 103 hence the exception for helicopters.........Mia where did you get the story for the height restrictions????? The reason the air scooter is suggtested lower than 50 feet is because if the engine or drive train fails you should be able to live thru the landing since the air scooter can not autorotate.

[Brian Jackson]

HMMMM, there is no height restriction on ultralight helicopters, there is also no speed restriction for ultralight helicopters as there is for ultralight fixed wing due to the power needed to hover gives a higher speed than allowed in FAR part 103 hence the exception for helicopters.........Mia where did you get the story for the height restrictions????? The reason the air scooter is suggtested lower than 50 feet is because if the engine or drive train fails you should be able to live thru the landing since the air scooter can not autorotate.
That was my understanding as well, for the same reason as the GEN-4 and that old Vortech killer (forgot what they called it.) No autorotation = no safety net if the engine(s) fail. Granted there is less likelihood of a total failure with multiple engine configurations, but it's not fool-proof... If your fuel is contaminated for any reason, both engines will probably fail in rapid succession. High altitude is NOT where you'd want to be right then.

Brian Jackson

[Victor Duarte]

david, brian, i think it may be a good explanation..
that's why they have these 2 big floaters (optionnal elsewhere)..
hum...strange conception of safety.. but fine to cut the hedges :D
seriously, if it cannot autorotate..customers sould be warned, at least..
or have they the same lawyer as lafleur?

edit : bad taste but we can call that an unmanned-after-landing-vehicle

[jsligar1]

What about a UltraSport 254? I heard of one for sale around here for about half the kit cost of 30K. I have not seen it but was told it was ready to fly.

[skyguynca]

It is a nice but expensive helicopter, if you are really into building your own you can get the AW95 plans from Vortech. I have those plans, and Doug the designer did a good job with them.

[Vance]

In conversations with Stanley Hiller, he has often said to stay away from fixed pitch helicopters because they are dangerous. Thank you, Vance

[Brian Jackson]

david, brian, i think it may be a good explanation..
that's why they have these 2 big floaters (optionnal elsewhere)..
hum...strange conception of safety.. but fine to cut the hedges :D
seriously, if it cannot autorotate..customers sould be warned, at least..
or have they the same lawyer as lafleur?

edit : bad taste but we can call that an unmanned-after-landing-vehicle
I believe the floats allow you to exceed the US Part 103 Ultralight weight limit by a substantial margin, if my memory serves. It's actually a pretty neat design, as long as you fly it like a low altitude hovercraft. It is what it is, and isn't trying to compete with Rotorway, UltraSport, etc. I believe it was originally marketed as an "off-road vehicle", and a very cool one I might add! :) Has a very unique control system too.

Cheers,
Brian Jackson

[skyguynca]

well the control system is a copy of Bensen's Little Zipster, the whole thing really is just a updated copy. Bensen did all the coaxial tilt control back in the 60's, and it flew just fine.

[Ted Eggleston]

Besides,me cows can't do 200mph.



Does this mean you don't sell your cows to the fast food industry Birdy?? :D :D

[KenSandyEggo]

Good one, Ted.

[Rotor Rooter]

I believe that the basic empty weight limitation of 254 lbs is allowed to increase by 30 lbs for each float. More information (http://www.synchrolite.com/A018.html#Floats) . It appears that John Uptigrove has also put floats on his enclosed Mosquito to remain in the Ultralight category.

It would be interesting to see if collapsed air bag floats, which were attached to the skids and expanded by firing an air cartridge would be an acceptable means of getting the crafts allowable empty weight up to 314 lbs.

Dave Jackson

[skyguynca]

Floats on a ultralight are exempt from the total empty weight. You can have a 254 lb aircraft with no landing gear, put ampibian or just floats on it is legal, I see alot of heavily built Quicksilvers done that way, because of the bigger engine they put on it, it weight more than the limit so they put ampib floats and now it is legal again.

[Victor Duarte]

david and dave, in france and europe the rules are similar to yours :
a recov chute allows 5 % of extra weight and floaters 10 %, not additive.
so, your opinion ? mine is "stay away"...

[skyguynca]

avoid like the plague, nice toy for the backyard only.

[quadrirotor]

Could be interesting with lots of redundancies! :) don't forget that for most twin engines high tech. helicos, autorotation is a forbidden practice!!!! :eek:

[brett s]

don't forget that for most twin engines high tech. helicos, autorotation is a forbidden practice!!!! :eek:

Because they are also very expensive helicopters & the odds of having a dual engine failure with modern turbines are pretty slim, most companies have decided it's not worth the risk of damage to practice autos to touchdown - it's a purely economic decision. They do still practice them with a power recovery :)

On a related note, many of the modern twins that are FADEC equipped use a special mode to simulate single engine flight where both engines are still online but it fakes the gauge readings & power response so the aircraft acts like it's single engine - but full power is there if needed, both to keep from bending the aircraft or exceeding single engine/transmission limits as might happen if you really were on one & something goes wrong in training.

[Vance]

I would think that when you run out of fuel both engines would stop. In the NTSB reports running out of fuel is common in aircraft. Thank You, Vance

[Al_Hammer]

If we call the chance of one engine failing "P", this chart shows that with 2 engines you've got twice the chance of having any one engine fail at a given time. 2P. Pretty obvious.
The chance of both engines failing is P squared.
If each engine has a failure rate of once per 1000 hrs, then both engines will fail every 1 million hours, on average.
http://was.kewlhair.com/hammer/probability.gif

[brett s]

Which is exactly why I'd never fly a helicopter that couldn't auto :)

[Al_Hammer]

Amen to that.

[Cobra Doc]

Other than an R-22 or Mini 500, which helicopter would that be? I hope you don't mean the EC-135!!

[brett s]

Hehehe... R22's auto just fine, although they aren't very forgiving at the bottom - I got spoiled by Bell 47's though.
The only helicopters I've seen that can't auto are those fixed-pitch coaxial ones already mentioned in the thread - no way you'll get me in one of those.

[Helidev II]

Couldnt agree more brett.

[Aussie Blue]

Just visited the helishow in Dubai, ezycopter had a stall there.

I am an engineer, somewhat driver... The info and samples they had there were interesting. Collective control, extruded blades, blade holders and swashplate well machined. These will all be cast in the production versions. Swashplate good for 30K RPM.

Retail price for kit between $US 35-40K...

Will be interesting to watch, delivery scheduled for next year, they have presold a number already!

I wiill have no hope of getting one registered here (UAE) unless a Sheik wants one as a toy...

Have fun

[Victor Duarte]

Andrew,
the ezcopter has been around for times, if I am not wrong, the rotorhead design comes from the Gyrodyne QH-50C UAV , it is pretty complex and, IMHO over engineered.

35 k for the kit ?? the cheaper helicopter kit ?? i want to see that.... looks most like an advertisement .

Thanks

[Rotor Rooter]

Way back in 11-17-2004 Vance wrote;I would think that when you run out of fuel both engines would stop. In the NTSB reports running out of fuel is common in aircraft. Here is an idea; Safety Fuel (http://www.unicopter.com/0794.html)
______________

On the same day Al Hammer wrote;If each engine has a failure rate of once per 1000 hrs, then both engines will fail every 1 million hours, on average. A couple of comments, for the fun of it;
1/ If both engines were new in the beginning then the probability of a simultaneous failure will be greater.
2/ If the flight durations on one engine are shorter than 1 hr then the chance that both engines will fail during the same flight will be less.

Additional stuff; Two Engines: (http://www.unicopter.com/Duality.html)

[Mosquito Man]

Looks like its come up a couple of times in this thread, but for those who think $20K is expensive for a chopper, let me tell you trying to put out a helicopter kit for that price has been quite a task! The only way we can get away with offering the Mosquito at that price is because of the Can$ exchange.

John

[Vance]

Hello John, I think your helicopter is briliant. Your parts are art. It apears to fly very well. I don't see how you can make a profit at $20,000! I hope your company survives because we need your cleaverness and work ethic. Thank you, Vance

[Mosquito Man]

Thanks Vance, we've sold 37 so far and I'm still not sure if I'm actually making a profit. $#%^& Canadian dollar keeps going up. :mad: :confused:

[Vance]

Hello John, in case you didn't already know, a begining business with that kind of growth is a very hard thing to measure. Usually there is not enough time to count carefully enough to have any real answers. There is no old data to compare current performance against.

Congratulations on the 37, cash flow will delay consequences of inevitable errors. Good luck, Vance

[quadrirotor]

I could get a Honda CRV for u$20000!!!

[Mosquito Man]

But how high will it fly?

[GyroRon]

You can buy a brand new Kia Rio car here for less than the cheapest gyroplane kit on the market - the Starbee gyro kit MINUS engine and prop. but like John said... how high will it fly! ;)

[quadrirotor]

That's an expensive toy!

[Dean_Dolph]

That's an expensive toy!Uh, well yeah, what is your point?!

[KenSandyEggo]

"That's an expensive toy!"

All toys are expensive, otherwise they wouldn't be called "toys."

[quadrirotor]

I need a utility helico! not a toy...but to get hours, why not?

[Mosquito Man]

The Mosquito is not a chopper that you can sling loads with (although I slung my kid's bike home once after he got it stuck in the mud and left it there) but for sure it could be used by farmers and ranchers on a regular basis for hearding cattle, flying fence lines or just flying out to your tractor/combine.

[quadrirotor]

do you sell plans of the Mosquito?

[Mosquito Man]

No, only kits for now.

[Sekse]

Ok, well, I was concidering building an ultralight heli, but after all the news I heard on this site about people dying, I think I am just going to settle for a gyrocopter. Much safer and easier to build. Going to miss the verticle takeoffs, though. Be cool if there was an afforable jet powerful enough to propel an autogyro, then I could do away with that awkward propeller. Oh well. But I am still gonna make a body shell for my gyro that looks like an apache, lol.

[Ga6riel]

Seske good call
jets are not particualerly useful for gyros, as jets need 400mph + to have any sort of efficiency, it would infact be dangerous. Jet engine designers themselves have turned to high bypass fans to recover efficiency, and sometime in the future fans may be a way to go for gyros, as the they have a good measure of efficiency even with restricted diameters and make ground handling a good deal safer, however not driven by jet engines. Add to that the lower noise component.

That said, the hardware is not apparent, and anyone who got into it would need to be able to construct their own fan/duct. Thats not a good propsition for an amatuer given the simplicity and availability of props, not that its impossible.

[animal]

The Mosquito is not a chopper that you can sling loads with (although I slung my kid's bike home once after he got it stuck in the mud and left it there) but for sure it could be used by farmers and ranchers on a regular basis for hearding cattle, flying fence lines or just flying out to your tractor/combine.

now thats a pic I would love to see.

[Mozzy]

WANT TO WIN A REAL HELICOPTER?
This is a 2000 to 1 odds raffle!!! This means one stands a great chance of winning!!! CHECK IT OUT!!!

A Mosquito XEL ultralight helicopter worth $32,000(US) plus $7500(US) in flight training and the cost to ship is being raffled off for $37.50 per chance. There are only 2000 chances, so the odds are 2000 to 1 if you have one change.

Go to this site to buy a chance(S), and read the details. You will also see videos of both versions of the Mosquito flying, and many photos.

http://www.mosquito.net.nz

[quadrirotor]

is there anything new???

[Rotor Rooter]

The following web page is directed at helicopters with Advancing Blade Concepts. However, it is applicable to those who might be considering the building of a twin-rotor helicopter.

Coaxial-ABC
versus
Intermeshing-ABC
(http://www.unicopter.com/B183.html)


Arguments appreciated. http://www.unicopter.com/Chairshot.gif

Dave

[quadrirotor]

Thank you Dave, to support the Touringcopter!...

[atkinson]

The comparison does not mention effects of the angle between rotor thrust vectors. The intermeshing configuration surely pays for the larger effective disk, and I'd like to see how much.

[quadrirotor]

As the angle between the two masts is around 26°, the efficiency is equal to cos13°=0.975, so a loss of around 2.5%...

[Rotor Rooter]

quadrirotor has covered the application that is probably the prefered one for homebuilt craft.

For interest, this is the answer for a UniCopter-ABC;
The angle between the two masts is designed at 18°. In addition, the rotors have a precone of 4°. This means that during cruise, when the outside (advancing) sides of the disks are providing most of the thrust, the angle is (18/2 - 4) = 5°.

Dave

[quadrirotor]

Dave, the technology involved in the Unicopter-ABC is far from the affordable rotorcraft...The management of the fatigue of the two masts are beyond the reach of the homebuilder...
For high performance craft, the X wing seems to be more appropriate...and beyond a given speed, you don't need many things to fly!...

http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/115494.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3KI_sCx164&NR

[Rotor Rooter]

quadrirotor,

Nice sketch.

However, the rotor never copulated with the fuselage. They never flew united. :plane::plane:

Dave

[quadrirotor]

quadrirotor,

Nice sketch.

However, the rotor never copulated with the fuselage. They never flew united. :plane::plane:

Dave

I don't know if i catch it...However, the xwing (Piasecki, beneath) is the result of an evolution not a copulation!... :))

I don't think the Duck-Billed Platypus (Ornithorynque) is the result of the trans-species copulation of Donald Duck with our canadian beaver!... ;)

[Rotor Rooter]

quadrirotor,

Sorry, I was too glib.

Your picture is of the Sikorsky X-wing. http://www.answers.com/topic/sikorsky-x-wing

It flew on its wings but it never flew with the rotor attached.

Dave

[quadrirotor]

OK!...

:focus: :focus:

[quadrirotor]

That's a lot of research and dev.; it seems to me the simpler way to have an affordable heli off the ground is to modify the Safari heli to have a tandem seating, with a nascar differential as a transmission and a Subaru engine, you keep the blades and the head; may be you could use an electric engine for the TR...

http://www.aviationtomorrow.com/




Has anybody any info on this kind of electric motor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Pb_psj1A8

[Bruno]

I also posted this under a different thread, bu8t I do think it is quite interesting. As far as I know, the Gyrodyne drone has gone or is going out of active service. Hundreds must have been produced. They should be in plentiful and cheap supply as military surplus. Parts should be plentiful, too.
Also knowhow -- those things have been around for ages.

Why couldn't it be adapted back to a single-seat helicopter (from which it was originally derived)? Wouldn't it make a perfect personal helicopter?

[Cita]

..........
Why couldn't it be adapted back to a single-seat helicopter (from which it was originally derived)? Wouldn't it make a perfect personal helicopter?



I would go for the Hiller Rotorcycle:D

Cita

[Bruno]

I would go for the Hiller Rotorcycle:D

Cita

Maybe, but there aren't any around, while Gyrodynes have probably been scrapped or mothballed by hundreds. Also, Gyrodyne is turbine powered, which is vastly better. A newer design, too. Tried and tested over what, 40 years?

But, yes, I do admit that Hiller was also a sexy little machine.