News on the UFO Helithruster [Archive]

Steelman

08-29-2009, 11:48 AM

Hello from New Zealand,
I have just started learning to fly a Gyro and have been that excited by it all that I even been up to the UFO Helithruster factory a couple of times to check out that machine.
I have an engineering background and think that the approach being made to building these craft from an engineering point of view is very sound. My background in designing and building aircraft is non existant so I can't really give an opinion on how they will fly.
The big problem is finding a Helithruster that is flying and has a few hours under its belt.
Can anyone tell me of their experiences with Helithrusters. Are there some out there that are performing well?
I think what we all should bare in mind is some have been sold as part of a kit and the factory has no control over how the machine is speced up let alone how it is put together.
Would love some feedback on this machine.

Chopper Reid

08-31-2009, 01:38 AM

You will have problems finding many UFO's with many flying hours and its all very well the factory blaming the builders, but the ufo has a few problems and getting them fixed costs money.
My advice to you is to get "unexcited" as quickly as possible, a couple of long cold showers could help!! Step back a bit and do a lot of research before making any commitments.
UFO's have been around for a while but they havent taken off and that to me suggests alarm bells. Yes, there was one flying here in Ozz but it finished up in a ball of scrap metal with the pilot deceased . It could well be a handful for the in experienced pilot.

There are better, safer machines like the ELA /Magni/ Sport Copter to name some.

Sapientino

09-01-2009, 12:34 AM

UFO's have been around for a while but they havent taken off and that to me suggests alarm bells. Yes, there was one flying here in Ozz but it finished up in a ball of scrap metal with the pilot deceased . It could well be a handful for the in experienced pilot.

There are better, safer machines like the ELA /Magni/ Sport Copter to name some.

can you tell me some more about ufo defects?
it is a clt with big stab so I cannot understand which could be problem in stability
Thanks
Paolo

Chopper Reid

09-01-2009, 01:11 AM

can you tell me some more about ufo defects?
it is a clt with big stab so I cannot understand which could be problem in stability
Thanks
Paolo
__________________
Sapientino

Not here on the forum thanks.

Steelman

09-01-2009, 11:15 AM

Chopper Reid

09-02-2009, 01:22 AM

Thanks Chopper,
You make a lot of sense. What you are saying are the same reasons I am trying to find out peoples experiences with these craft. Thanks for your feedback.
Is there anyone out there who owns one of these craft or has some recent experience with them?
I gather they have been constantly developed so they should be different in a few ways from the original ones.

I can give you the phone number of a senior instructor here who has had as much to do with the UFO as anyone. His name is Kevin Traeger 0885763300.

I agree with you, the UFO should be much improved on the earlier model however, they are still a big heavy gyro and I personally dont believe thats the best option for a new pilot. Get a single seat open frame gyro, do a 100 or 200 hours and you will be in a much better position to make a wise decidion.

Semler

09-02-2009, 02:01 AM

Bruce,

Knowing Kevin and having spoken to him about the UFO, it's not a gyro to jump into as a beginner, (Just incase you don't talk to Kevin i got the impression that he won't be touching another.)

As Brian said get a couple hundred hours up in a basic open single seater and then look for that sexy beast of a gyro, There's plenty out there now.

If you decide to call Kevin remember to put a 61 infront of the number that Brian gave. (due to being an international call)

Good luck and safe Gyro flying.

Regards,
Trent

zeebo

09-02-2009, 01:45 PM

Hi Buce, Get in touch with Alf Crowe from fielding, he was the UFO test pilot. You say you are training, are you training with Tony Unwin in Tauranga? I highly recommend him, Cheers Sybe.

OzyRuss

09-02-2009, 05:54 PM

Has anybody seen........heard of.......know of..........2 or 3 that are flying, being built,or whatever..............anywhere on this planet

Not me....................did hear their guy "Alf" totalled one a yr or 2 back, i could be wrong tho.

Do know that an oz guy with good hrs has flown one, after protracted problems building it ( another story ) .........he would recommend going elsewhere.

Then there is another one here, fully built after similar problems and more, yet to be flown as it was deemed not up to " standards " therefore unregisterable.
That guy may possibly expand on this situation.

Apart from all these dramas.............they look a million bucks, but looks don't make em safe etc etc

Stevnz

09-02-2009, 06:38 PM

There have been some negative comments about UFOs but they seem to relate to early models and home built kits.
The UFO has a reputation for being fast on takeoff and landing.
For the one that crashed in Aussie, was the pilot taking off uphill? with the wind behind him? with his own engine? with his own electric pre-rotator?
It seems sensible to learn on a smaller machine rather than a large or fast machine, just like learning to ride a motorbike really.
I have attached a quick comparison of some two seaters. I know it doesn't include lots of factors such as instrumentation, and that the engineering/build quality and flyability are most important.
However it shows that the UFO is price competitive for a large two seater. There are many flying and the factory is busy, so they can't be too bad.

bones

09-02-2009, 07:06 PM

Vance

09-02-2009, 07:17 PM

It is amazing to me that they can get the same cruse speed and a 50% faster climb with 75% of the horsepower of the Sport Copter II and to do it burning only 3.75 gallons per hour.

I would love to understand how they do that.

It is surprising to me that with so many flying that no one on the forum has come forward with any positive experience with them.

Thank you, Vance

OzyRuss

09-02-2009, 07:57 PM

"There are many flying and the factory is busy, so they can't be too bad."

Been hearing this same story for....................years........As i have said repeatedly............where are they.

The gyro community is relatively small, and these supposed owners / pilots are nowhere to be found. I some time back directly asked the "factory" for a "contact" of an owner flying one of these..............it was like getting blood out of a stone..........eventually, they got back to me with a guy in.................Russia...... ( no name, just the country )

These "UFO's" are smoke and mirror stuff........................( their claims/performances, are unsubstanciated by gyro folks about here / anywhere for that matter )..............interesting.

OzyRuss

09-02-2009, 09:38 PM

This is the machine..........i heard how much it cost to this point, was stunned.
Someone else may have an "actual or more accurate costing".....??? The figure i was told, was simply unbelievable.

( $200k plus )

Gyro_Kai

09-03-2009, 12:46 AM

Brian (Reid), I sent you a PN.

Kai.

Racer

09-03-2009, 07:12 AM

I have seen one up close and got a chance to give it a good look over.
The machine itself was a thing of beauty and would look great in anyones hanger, however as you dug deeper parts of the control system were smaller and weaker than the same parts on my single place Air Command and in my opinion they were not anywhere close to being strong enough for the job especially considering that they were the pieces that had to control those 32' heavy rotor blades.
I was asked if I would help straighted the front wheel nose gear because it got bent while riding on the trailer. I bent it back without much effort at all and preached to the ones in charge that this aircraft should not be flown until these issues I have found have been replaced with components that were sufficient for the job.

The Sales rep that was dragging this thing all over the states was trying to sell these machines to anyone who could come up with a down payment even though neither he or anyone else has ever flown this machine that he was demoing.

Just my personal experiences with a UFO

Heron

09-03-2009, 02:02 PM

OzyRuss

09-03-2009, 02:16 PM

When i was persueing a 2 seated cabined machine some yrs back, i approached these "UFO" guys.............to cut a long story short..........

even then, they were saying...........our production line is full , we have 15 machines on the go at the minute, please get your deposit in, so we can get your order into the system.

That was about 4 yrs ago. ( and when questioned about their stated performance figures............yea, that was interesting as well )

Smoke and mirrors..................

Vance

09-03-2009, 02:29 PM

It can be built in Brazil for less than 50 Ks.
I lost track of those fellows sometime ago, but still no UFO in the market.
It is beatyfull and whatever problems it has can be fixed.
I think it is a little too big.
Heron

Being a business enthusiast I always wonder what that means, built for less than $50 Ks.

Does that mean it would sell for less than $50,000 or that it would cost less than $50,000 to build?

If it sold for less than $50,000 what would it cost to build it?

In other words what gross margin is required to make a profit in the gyroplane manufacturing business?

The RAF sold for less than $25,000 and it was built in Canada with a design and engine similar to the UFO.

The Sparrow Hawk at the end sold for $45,500 and according to the numbers I have seen cost them twice as much to build and market each one.

Thank you, Vance

troed@aon.at

09-03-2009, 11:17 PM

Concerning costs to build a gyro: the guy in the photo is from Hungary and started building the copy of the copy of the ELA but with security features and more secure frame structure (it turned out, that the German MT03´s frames after some 400 -600 hrs just rip at the welded connection between mast and horizontal frame; mastfoot-fracture; now a lotta accs become clear).

Although equipped with a Rotax 912 the guy will sell this gyro (including open cabin) in serial production for 30.000.- to 35.000.- € and still earn good money. Too open-hearted he told me that material costs for this prototype were about 5.000.- € ( and maybe less) since all parts were not self built (except frame) but taken from other serial airplanes and trikes long term tested for structural reliability.

Just to give You an idea how cheap serial production of gyros can be....................

Vance

09-04-2009, 02:58 AM

This brings me back to the original question.

Going with 35,000 Euros retail price, around $50,000 how much money does the manufacturer spend to manufacture the gyroplane?

I am trying to understand what margin does someone need to profitably manufacture market, distribute and support a gyroplane.

What profit margin does the dealer need?

When I was a motorcycle dealer I grossed between 17% and 22% on motorcycles so for a 20% margin the dealer would need to buy the gyroplane from the manufacturer for 28,000 Euros or $40,000.

Harley Davidson around 1995 was spending around 6% for marketing, 3% on warrantees 5% on distribution and was netting around 15% or in other words 29% gross profit. In our example the aircraft would need to cost 19,880 Euros or $28,237 to manufacture. They were selling around 200,000 units per year. As a dealer I was selling around 100 units in a small agricultural town.

I am wondering how the gyroplane business compares.

Thank you, Vance

Heron

09-04-2009, 05:46 AM

Vance
That number is a rough stimate for the first machine, rigs, molds and such.
The cabin would cost 15 g´s real (7 g USD) for the mold and 10 gs for each one made after that.
So, add 3 gs for a Subaru (all dollars now) 2 g´s for a rotor, reductions vary but I say 1.5 will buy one and go from there.
I guess the 50 will be the price for USA and Europe with a little less for other nations under the Big Belt .. .but there must be local assembly to cut costs and import taxes.
Maybe 20% gross profit for each machine will be fair to estimate.
Lots of little details but the ball park figure is like this.
Start adding brand name, demand, luxury, perfomance and all goes up.
I have the same experience with UFO people, when we challenge them about going to NZ and buying one to bring back with us, the conversations stopped.
Heron

troed@aon.at

09-04-2009, 05:57 AM

Well Vance, speaking for Europe (and methinks there are not too much differences between ELA, MTO3, Magni and XENON) the dealer receives between 5.000.- € (7.000.- $) and 9.000.- € (12.000.- $) per sold gyro ("power sellers" are in the upper range ´cause they are supposed to live on it).

Nothing to get rich from and partly spent for service-activities and marketing.

Still there must be another 10.000.- - 20.000.- € left for the factory otherwise they couldn´t invest in bigger facilities and development of new closed gyros the "market" (= we, or some of us like me) demands.

So if the Hungarian guy has to pay 17.000.- € for a Rotax 912 and then will have to live on building gyros (since European gyroists demand cheap gyros, thus making this ELA-clone a "self-runner" without much marketing) he only has to calculate the value of his working time regarding the fact that right now labour-costs are extremely cheap down in Hungary since the local currency dropped bottomless due to the almost bankrupcy of the Hungarian state.

Thus maybe he is going to earn a fortune compared with high-price countries like Germany/Italy/Spain.

We have to take what gyros are: windmills with a motor and a chair (and of course a basic design that in Europe derives vom Vittorio Magni and Juka Tervamakki thus almost all gyros beeing a a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy..............

Heron

09-04-2009, 02:09 PM

A manufacturer will make more money selling "packages" than gyros. Also maintenance and upgrades will count for some fat at the end.
I think local assembly will make money instead of creating shippment cost. The assemblers will be doing maintenance.
No big facilities = less cost. A small assembly line can put 2 gyros per month in the region.
Some 4 years ago I did an excel with numbers from equipment, acessories and logo gear related, it makes the same amount in profit a gyro will make.
Brazil market (non existent today) will be able to acommodate 100 gyros per year. There are 7 Ultralite manufacturers here, all doing good.
South America as a whole is 300 million plus strong.
We are the second in registered airplanes in the world.
Heron

Vance

09-04-2009, 09:50 PM

Thank you Angelo, I am not able to get the numbers to line up.

Starting at $50,000 and giving the dealer $9,000 that leaves $41,000.

If the manufacturer makes $27,000 on each one that only leaves $14,000 to buy the engine and build the gyroplane.

That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

Working the other way, your friend pays $24,000 for the engine, gives the dealer $9,000 he has a cost of $33,000. If he is trying to make even $13,000 each that brings him to a cost of $46,000 before the rotors, airframe, instruments and body. It is hard to imagine that he could build all that stuff for $4,000.

What am I missing?

Thank you, Vance

Heron

09-05-2009, 06:54 AM

A basic frame (aluminun tandem) will cost around 4 gs.
Add the rest and voilá!
Too much fat for name brand kill most projects.
Tom Miltom must have most of the prices handy.
Heron

troed@aon.at

09-06-2009, 12:33 AM

Hi Heron !

Sorry for beeing vague in the calcs (I´m still no mathematician):

For the Hungarian guy the calc runs as follows (according to him):

lets take the prize he calculated in the lowest range (always w/o taxes that differ from country to country):

30.000.- € selling prize
- 17.000.- € Rotax 912
________________________
13.000.- €
- 5.000.- € building materials (frame/wheels, tanks, rudder, cables, etc.)
________________________
8.000.- €
- 2.000.- € rotor-head/alu-blades (from Poland)
_________________________
6.000.- € netto win for builder

since he has no costs for dealers and looking at the average living costs in Hungary this is a fortune !

When You just copy a rotorhead instead of buying it and find a company to extrude Your blades costs are further reduced. In the German forum someone who works in aircraft industry told us that extruded alu-blades in serial production are about 100.- € per blade. This was the reason why the MT03 company changed from the French Aircopter-blades to self made blades 2006.

The so called "German-quality" survived as a fairytale but is not consistent to reality. They reduce manufacturing-costs wherever possible to sell their gyros cheaper than the competitors.

The XENON is built in Poland since it would be 20%-30% more expensive to build it in France.

Stevnz

09-06-2009, 01:50 AM

Comment from Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association Forums:

Reply #2 on: September 02, 2008, 14:01:21 PM »

Gidday All,

This is an interresting post in that one of ASRAs respected TAs has just returned from the UFO factory in NZ to conduct preliminary inspections of the gyro and the manufacturing facility. His report was very positive.

The manufacturer is working closely with ASRA with a view to having the UFO imported into OZ as a fully compliant non-provisional 2 seater. A few difficulties have been noted and the fixes have already been incorporated. With UFOs flying in 3 countries and 2 in the US being certified to LSA and E-LSA standard respectively, we don't anticipate any major problems into the future. The manufacturer is most co-operative which is a pleasant change.

There have been UFOs built in OZ in the past and it is no secret that they were far from the current product. It is unfortunate perhaps, that this has occurred and that the current model bears the same designation as these early "kits". I use that word loosely here.

and ...
Reply #7 on: August 18, 2009, 11:14:33 AM »

I have some experience with the engineering around the UFO as there is one here in the West that needed many mods to meet our OZ standards. I am just waiting for the owner to sort out a few engine issues before I test fly it. Based on my descusions with Kevin Traeger it will not be a low hour pilots machine! The one here is 506kg empty to start with!

Stevnz

09-06-2009, 02:05 AM

Stev, why did you choose to compare the smaller Xenon to the big birds?
I'm not gonna get in a pissing match but figures are a lot different with different motors.

Since there is alot flying where are the photos, and it is funny you say the factory is busy, because and i know this is second hand but was told they are not.

I included the Xenon purely because it was also a side by side two seater.
I'm not trying to suggest that the UFO's are equivalent to or better than any other machine. However it seems that some of the critical comments relate to older versions than that which is currently produced.

It certainly would be helpful to know how many of the current (and previous) version have been sold, and how they are faring. Achievement of certification in Australia would also provide more confidence in the UFO product.
The only training school in my part of the country happily uses Xenon.

bones

09-06-2009, 02:14 AM

I included the Xenon purely because it was also a side by side two seater.
I'm not trying to suggest that the UFO's are equivalent to or better than any other machine. However it seems that some of the critical comments relate to older versions than that which is currently produced.

It certainly would be helpful to know how many of the current (and previous) version have been sold, and how they are faring. Achievement of certification in Australia would also provide more confidence in the UFO product.
The only training school in my part of the country happily uses Xenon.

I was referring about the smaller engine reference, and figures you used.
I do not know of any UFO othre than the 1 in the West, still not flying as far as i am aware.

Heron

09-06-2009, 07:19 AM

It is a pitty the UFO, after this long while, is not in full production and all over the place.
We do know from the mast back we have some pretty well designed and powered machines using Subarus.
As far as the Xenon, it is a great gyro, I don´t know if its possible to modify it for a bigger engine with simple steps. But it will be right there with the UFO in confort and price range.
So far no one that told me to stay away from UFOs explained why . . .
Heron

PW_Plack

09-06-2009, 07:25 AM

...and 2 in the US being certified to LSA and E-LSA standard respectively...The one here is 506kg empty to start with!

Certified by whom?

It will be interesting to see how a machine that weighs 1113 pounds empty (506 kg) can come in at 1320 max gross with pilot and any fuel.

Heron

09-06-2009, 12:31 PM

What we need is better division of the classes micro, ultra and lite. More sound measurements.
Heron

troed@aon.at

09-06-2009, 11:31 PM

Hi StevNZ !

These are good news ! Since I will come down to NZ this Xmas do You think it will be possible to have a test-flight for some direct experience ? I´ll be in NZ from Dec.18th to Jan. 6th........

Steelman

09-06-2009, 11:47 PM

Hi Buce, Get in touch with Alf Crowe from fielding, he was the UFO test pilot. You say you are training, are you training with Tony Unwin in Tauranga? I highly recommend him, Cheers Sybe.

Yes just started training with Tony before he went to Europe. Can't wait to get going again.
I will get in touch with a few people, but not yet. I will wait until I have a few hours up and have absorbed a bit more knowledge and experience.
Hopefully someone comes forward with some firsthand experience (thats not to say I aren't grateful for any news on them).

PTKay

09-07-2009, 04:08 AM

So far no one that told me to stay away from UFOs explained why . . .

Heron, is the information you got above not speaking for itself???

After over 6 years of web advertising we cannot spot here, among
all the forum users, a single person that saw UFO flying for longer
than just a few flights before crashing.

Is this not enough for you.

In the same time Xenon went from single hand made prototypes
to serial manufacturing with over 80 sold (documented)
and the frame #100 in the pipeline this year.

Probably 90% of these delivered machines are successfully flying,
with just one taxiing accident (mole hole in Norway) and a few
incidents with door latches in the beginning.

No injuries, no fatalities.

Do compare yourself, Heron, and draw your own conclusions.

Heron

09-07-2009, 05:00 AM

PT
I can´t draw any conclusions without testing the machine.
I have seen the Xenon, it is superb, a little underpowered for my taste but a great project.
I do love the UFO shape, have seen couple of videos and since day one I got one of our Forum coleagues telling me He would not touch it with a 10 ft pole . . .never told me why.
If you present me a problem I will try to find a solution or alternative, it can´t be the shape I guess it is with the mast/rotor configuration because that is what flies.
No buyer half educated will buy an UFO, off cours the Xenon is a better machine at present moment.
There is the Sportcopter but I can not compare haven´t see the later . . .
So tell me what is the problem with the UFO, other than bad marketing and how can we make it a better ship?
thanks
Heron

PTKay

09-07-2009, 06:55 AM

PT...
If you present me a problem I will try to find a solution or alternative, it can´t be the shape I guess it is with the mast/rotor configuration because that is what flies.

Flying is about weight and lift.

The problem with UFO is weight.
The frame is steel, the cabin is glass fibre.
Both are heavy materials.
The cabin is not self supporting, needs steel support.
This ads to extra weight.
On top of it, the size matters,
the bigger, the more material you need.

Xenon has self supporting cabin, being structural support
to aluminium mast and tail booms.

The key to aviation design is weight optimization.
If you haven't designed it into your project from the very beginning,
there is not much you can do later.

As far as I can remember, some of the people trying to build UFO,
noticed, that, for example the engine cowling made of fibreglass
was over 35kg alone. Total nonsense.
The same cone made of aluminium was half the weight.

It is just an example, but if you have to do the same with
every part of this project, then it's pure nonsense.

Weight problem in aircraft is a "devils circle".
You ad weight, you need bigger rotor and bigger engine.
Bigger rotor and bigger engine mean even more weight,
so you never come out of this mess, until you save weight
from the very beginning.

The other matter is the "tall tail".

Look at the SportCopter II, they tried it and gave it up.
Why?
It's way to heavy for it's function.
The same story with the SparrowHawk.
Extremely heavy "tall tail" machine,
recently abandoned by the manufacturer.

Few years ago I was also deeply impressed by the look of UFO.
But over the years it came out, that not always
"what looks, good flies good".

At least not in this case.

Xenon, or Arrow-Copter were designed from scratch
with the weight in mind from the very beginning.

Raphael Celier know by hart the weicht in gramms of every nut and bolt
on his machine and carefully designs it to optimize the function against weight.

PTKay

09-07-2009, 07:15 AM

The so called "German-quality" survived as a fairytale but is not consistent to reality. They reduce manufacturing-costs wherever possible to sell their gyros cheaper than the competitors.

I agree 100% with you.
The German cars long ago (20-30 years ago) lost their quality.
Now you pay just for the logo on the hood the extra 30-40%...

The XENON is built in Poland since it would be 20%-30% more expensive to build it in France.
This is not only matter of price, but also value for money.
The quality of Polish fibreglass manufacturing is renowned around the world.
Almost all of the best sailing yachts under the French or German trademarks
are made in Poland.
Also the best gliders are made in Poland.
The FK and Remos UL fiberglass aircraft are made in Poland.

BTW: The Xenon rotor hubbar and blades are not (yet) made in Poland.
They are imported from France.

gyromike

09-07-2009, 07:50 AM

The other matter is the "tall tail".

Look at the SportCopter II, they tried it and gave it up.
Why?
It's way to heavy for it's function.
The same story with the SparrowHawk.
Extremely heavy "tall tail" machine,
recently abandoned by the manufacturer.

A tall-tail doesn't have to be heavy.

The Xenon uses a "tall-tail", except that it's mounted sideways with the verticals and rudders below it. I'm sure Raphael made it structurally sound without any excess weight.

Heron

09-07-2009, 08:07 AM

That´s it, easy fixes for the UFO!
I kinda felt it on the weight side, also it is way to big!
I know about that problem, we even counted number of bolt treads to save metal.
Heron

PTKay

09-07-2009, 12:02 PM

A tall-tail doesn't have to be heavy.

The Xenon uses a "tall-tail", except that it's mounted sideways with the verticals and rudders below it. I'm sure Raphael made it structurally sound without any excess weight.

Yes, that's true that the Xenon tail gives it as high the stability,
as the "Tall tail" would do.

BUT, the key part is, that the wide horizontal stabilizer exactly in line with
the propeller axis does the two functions:

- protection against PPO and PIO
- prop torque compensation.

The same single plane does the trick, for which the "tall tail" needs
two surfaces, hence almost double the weight.

The other important factor is the arm of the tail.
If you compare the length of the machines (from Stevnz's table):

UFO: 157.5in Xenon: 192.9in SportCopterII: 186in

by the size of UFO cabin, the Xenon tail arm must be at least 35in longer !!!
It's almost 1 meter !!!

The effectiveness of the stab in this case is much higher.
I don't know which version of the SCII Stevnz quotes, but I assume
the "Magni tail" version, also on a long arm.

The complicated and "all floating" "tall tail" makes it almost imposssible
to put it on such a long arm.

Smaller vertical and horizontal stabilizer on longer arm is nothing new.
Look at the gliders. They are very weight sensitive, so nobody puts huge
"tall tail" on them, instead a very small one on a very long arm.

Of course, gyrocopters with a very high cabin AoA prevent very long tails,
but there certainly is an optimal combination, and I think that the Xenon
just "hit the nail on the head" with the combination they use.

PTKay

09-07-2009, 12:06 PM

That´s it, easy fixes for the UFO!
I kinda felt it on the weight side, also it is way to big!

But, still, Heron, why to buy something,
that you know, will need a lot of "fixes"
that will cost you an arm and a leg,
instead of buying the proper thing and instantly fly away...
(effectively for less money, and much faster)

Heron

09-07-2009, 03:01 PM

PT I am talking the manufacturer fixing it.
I will built another machine if I can.
Heron

Steelman

09-08-2009, 01:33 AM

Flying is about weight and lift.

The problem with UFO is weight.
The frame is steel, the cabin is glass fibre.
Both are heavy materials.
The cabin is not self supporting, needs steel support.
This ads to extra weight.
On top of it, the size matters,
the bigger, the more material you need.

Xenon has self supporting cabin, being structural support
to aluminium mast and tail booms.

The key to aviation design is weight optimization.
If you haven't designed it into your project from the very beginning,
there is not much you can do later.

As far as I can remember, some of the people trying to build UFO,
noticed, that, for example the engine cowling made of fibreglass
was over 35kg alone. Total nonsense.
The same cone made of aluminium was half the weight.

It is just an example, but if you have to do the same with
every part of this project, then it's pure nonsense.

Weight problem in aircraft is a "devils circle".
You ad weight, you need bigger rotor and bigger engine.
Bigger rotor and bigger engine mean even more weight,
so you never come out of this mess, until you save weight
from the very beginning.

The other matter is the "tall tail".

Look at the SportCopter II, they tried it and gave it up.
Why?
It's way to heavy for it's function.
The same story with the SparrowHawk.
Extremely heavy "tall tail" machine,
recently abandoned by the manufacturer.

Few years ago I was also deeply impressed by the look of UFO.
But over the years it came out, that not always
"what looks, good flies good".

At least not in this case.

Xenon, or Arrow-Copter were designed from scratch
with the weight in mind from the very beginning.

Raphael Celier know by hart the weicht in gramms of every nut and bolt
on his machine and carefully designs it to optimize the function against weight.

We all need to be careful that we don't get too carried away with our emotions.

By the way PTKay I don't have anything against you for speaking your mind and giving your opinion on what you believe, that's what this forum is all about and I did ask if anyone had any experience on these craft.

As I have said, I have been up to the factory twice to talk with the manufacturer. He is very approachable and his passion is building these things.

I can assure you that weight is definately on his mind but he refuses to make any part substandard.

I definately get the impression that he is not trying to mislead people but is just trying to get on with making his craft as best he can and I think one of his regrets is getting word out there before they were ready.

When I looked at them and I don't think this has changed from the originals the frame was aluminum, the only steel frame was the small engine mounting frame, the cockpit was fiberglass but as he said most of the cockpit was perspex so making them out of carbon fibre was not going to make a huge difference to the weight.

You may well be right, but 35 kg's sounds a bit too much for the engine cowling.

He is still progressing and had a new prerotator setup had trialled a new tail and probably alot of things I don't know about.

I do agree the craft is heavy but in saying that it is quite big.
I don't know where all the improvements leave the older versions but lets hope he gets it to a point that performs as well as it looks soon.

Heron

09-08-2009, 04:46 AM

I think a great gyro can be made with that shape. Some ergonomics will be involved but the overall wheight of any cabin will be pretty much the same.
Structural parts though can be made lighter using fiber and metal reinforcement, the engine/reduction area is mostly what it is, I only heard so far about a plastic intake that will shed a few pounds.
To get at least 100 pounds off a ship is no easy task.
The advancements are on engines that are powefull and yet small and light.
Heron

C. Beaty

09-08-2009, 05:28 AM

There is more to a flying machine than just a party frock.

Heron

09-08-2009, 10:28 AM

I imagine that party frock = a group trying to dress up a gyro, am I corrrect mr.Beaty?
Heron

C. Beaty

09-08-2009, 11:08 AM

frock (frok), n.
1. a gown or dress worn by a girl or woman.
2. a loose outer garment worn by peasants and workers; smock.
3. a coarse outer garment with large sleeves, worn by monks.
4. See frock coat.

Heron

09-08-2009, 02:25 PM

I gather that the outside shell is the frock.
In my opinion it has to be aerodynamic and provide reasonable confort but it can also be structural.
thanks
Heron

Stevnz

09-09-2009, 04:09 PM

Gyro_Kai

09-09-2009, 09:51 PM

Steve,

the prospectus data must always be considered with some doubts. When the Vne of 210 kph for the Xenon came out, we all wondered how it would reach this speed, other than maybe by removing the blades.

Magni-Orion should have the data available by now, but maybe not on the internet.

The data for the UFO remain most doubious. It still needs to prove itself.

Kai.

troed@aon.at

09-09-2009, 10:24 PM

Hi Steve !

For Your comparison list:

Magni M24 Orion (according to the original pilot´s handbook issued by Magni)

Cabin: carbon fibre
Controls: dual
dry weight: 275 kg
gross weight: 550kg
cruise speed: 85 mph (75% motor-rpm)
max speed: 115 mph
Vne: 115 mph
prop manuf: Arplast

rest follows when I have time to work through the 160-page-handbook :o

PTKay

09-10-2009, 12:41 AM

To follow up on a previous posting I have enlarged my comparison of side by side gyros in the attached pdf file. It is quite difficult to obtain all the comparative information, and interesting that the manufacturer and dealers in various coutries sometimes have quite different performance stats.
I have converted some figures to a common base but there is still a mix of metric and non.
It is interesting to note the big range in dry weight (from 573lb to 1000lb).
There are also two camps of tail design - low and high, but both seem to work.

Such comparison makes no sense.

Please add number of aircraft flying and confirmed user reported data.
Copy and paste from commercial prospects is worth for nothing.

Especially for UFO, where nobody effectively have seen or tested one flying

Heron

09-10-2009, 08:27 AM

The rotor will be the main thing to consider for VNE, the gyro frame is almost indestructible . . .
The cabins made of structural composite go as fast as any aircraft can go, not an issue on a gyro´s VNE.
The UFO is a mirror image so far, no good discussion can come about it.
It is beauty and no beast . . .
Heron

Stevnz

09-10-2009, 01:11 PM

Such comparison makes no sense.

Please add number of aircraft flying and confirmed user reported data.
Copy and paste from commercial prospects is worth for nothing.

Especially for UFO, where nobody effectively have seen or tested one flying.

As I said in an earlier post, "the engineering/build quality and flyability are most important". The number sold and flying without incident are a good indicator of that but don't necessarily provide a complete picture. Otherwise a new manufacturer would never gain any market share.

For those machines that achieve the required level of safety, price and other factors need to be considered.

The GT Kruza looks quite interesting but it is a new unproven machine so far, at least in terms of number of sales and safe flights in comparison to other machines that have been marketed for years.

The 25th June 2009 service bulletin from Celier announced a new pre-rotator "To stop stupid comments from competition that Xenon may take-off longer than a tandem" :
Nominal speed : 300 RPM (or less if necessary), for rotor size 8.4m and 8.6m and 290 RPM on 8.8m
Maximum exceptional speed : 320 RPM
Take-Off distance is reduced by 30 to 50% depending on flying conditions.
However the preformance stats published by Celier on 3 September 2009 show Minimum TO distance for Xenon2R is 150m (490ft). Is this with or without the new pre-rotator? It seems quite long in comparison to other machines.

Stevnz

09-10-2009, 01:13 PM

Oskar

09-10-2009, 04:59 PM

Steve,

Angelo probably has more hours on his M24 than the combined hours of all the UFOs in existence.

Do yourself a favour and read all he has written about the M24 on this forum.

Oskar

Stevnz

09-10-2009, 07:11 PM

Steve,

Angelo probably has more hours on his M24 than the combined hours of all the UFOs in existence.

Do yourself a favour and read all he has written about the M24 on this forum.

Oskar

Ahhhr.... I remembered the other thread on the M24 (which I had read) soon after I posted that...

Chopper Reid

09-11-2009, 06:40 PM

While the GT Kruza is a new gyro, it has done thousands of hours of pre production in an moded RAF that eventually evolved to the current production model plus the Kruza has flown from day one [safely] and is now in production. The first Kruza has been sold to a instructor and will be getting a lot of hours up very quickly. This instructor has been test flying the Kruza for some 12 months so I think that speaks volumes for the product.

tailrotor007

09-12-2009, 09:48 AM

There will be more to comment on at a later date...

doc

Vance

09-12-2009, 10:03 AM

Hello Mr. Bailey,

The UFO Enforcer has quite a ring to it.

It is exciting to find out that we have another gyroplane manufacture here in the USA.

What are the flaws you found in the UFO and corrected?

How many have you sold to the law enforcement market?

How are they performing for law enforcement?

Are you selling to the general public?

Are you selling kits or complete aircraft?

Thank you, Vance

Heron

09-13-2009, 06:19 AM

Doc, any plans to build abroad or be represented?
thanks
Heron

Steelman

10-24-2009, 09:52 AM

Doc, any more news?

RotorTom

10-25-2009, 12:53 AM

PT
I have seen the Xenon, it is superb, a little underpowered for my taste but a great project.
Heron

I'm not sure what you're smoking ... but the Xenon is anything but underpowered. My Xenon RST @ my home airport (5480 ft) can climb out with two big guys and fuel at 500 fpm or better.

And Stevnz ... the cruise is not 75 mph as stated in your comparison. I regularly cruise at 90 KIAS.

... I'm just sayin ...

RotorTom

10-25-2009, 01:03 AM

This just is ... The latest UFO news ...

62514

Resasi

10-25-2009, 01:36 AM

PTKay

10-25-2009, 04:25 AM

This just is ... The latest UFO news ...

Tom, could you be more specific.

;)

RotorTom

10-25-2009, 11:56 AM

Tom, could you be more specific.
;)

62519

Welcome!

Vance

10-25-2009, 09:24 PM

I am going to be very interested indeed with the impressions that Vance will get and his opinions from both a business point of view and from his impressions of how it is to fly.

He is very business savvy and a cautious pilot with an experience level that many of us can relate to. Also with a good recent knowledge of working on his machine, extensive mechanical background and knowing what to look for.

Hello Leigh,

Thank you for the kind words.

I would not offer an opinion on the viability of a business because it has to do with daily management decisions. Most business nets less than 5% of the gross so you don’t have to make many mistakes to end up on the red side of zero profit.

I don’t know enough about gyroplanes to offer an opinion about a particular configuration. I was looking forward to the answers to my questions. I suspect that “Doc” Bailey has run into some start up problems.

I saw the UFO Helithruster at Sun n Fun several years ago and it was interesting to hear of its capabilities. “Doc” Bailey liked everything about it and I am surprised that he found a lot flaws in the UFO to fix. Some of the performance numbers seemed quite remarkable to me. He opined that it was very easy to learn to fly and I was not clear on his CFI status. He was including training in the purchase and selling fully assembled experimental gyroplanes.

He introduced me to his DAR and we had a lively exchange.

Thank you, Vance

PTKay

10-26-2009, 12:52 AM

Welcome!

Tom. It didn't help either.

:)

PW_Plack

10-26-2009, 01:51 AM

Tom. It didn't help either.:)

PT, not surprised you're confused by that one, since you probably never saw this American TV show. It was called "Fantasy Island."

Make sense now? ;)

PTKay

11-13-2009, 03:31 AM

Very sad indeed...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3058...p-before-crash

Chuck Roberg

11-13-2009, 05:04 AM

(" Very sad indeed...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3058...p-before-crash
__________________
PPL(A)-JAR, SEPL, 200h, ")

When I try the link. I get this.

Page not found

Sorry the page you are looking for no longer exists.

- Try searching by entering keyword(s) into the search box above

- or visit the homepage.

- or use the sitemap below

If you continue to have problems please contact us.

Harry_S.

11-13-2009, 05:40 AM

Try this one...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3058...p-before-crash

Cheers :)

Chuck Roberg

11-13-2009, 07:51 AM

Sorry Harry, that link does not work for me either. Maybe it's my P'uter.

Terry

11-13-2009, 07:58 AM

Sorry Harry, that link does not work for me either. Maybe it's my P'uter.

Try this (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3058514/Crash-victims-named). Something's abbreviating the address Harry is putting up.

Chuck Roberg

11-13-2009, 11:57 AM

Try this. Something's abbreviating the address Harry is putting up.

Thanks Terry. That worked.

Lone Wolf

11-13-2009, 12:43 PM

Hello Folks

Yes we are all deeply saddened by this tragedy.
Stephen Chubb was our national president of the NZ Autogyro association.
A great guy, he bought the first Magni into the country about 5 years ago, a beautiful 2-place machine that he gave countless rides and did large cross-country trips with.

The accident was in a UFO though, I did not know the owner Neville Adlam and I do not know the status of the flight, i.e. training or what.

There will be a memorial service for Stephen on Wednesday at 11 am, in his hometown of Hawera.

Thank you, Gordon Gibson.

troed@aon.at

11-13-2009, 10:17 PM

What a tragedy.......... My condolences to his family and the gyro-community of NZ, we lost a great one.

I had a date to fly with him on Jan. 8 ............. I hope they will find out what made the UFO go down.

Terry

11-13-2009, 10:41 PM

Neville Adlam (http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/3062454/Citroen-good-guy-had-built-his-own-gyrocopter/)

Terry

11-13-2009, 11:09 PM

Thought this might be interesting for some.

bones

11-14-2009, 12:10 AM

There is something that just dont look right about the side on shoot of the UFO, the rotor head is so far behind the mast, the rotor head IMHO should be leading the mast not following.

karlbamforth

11-14-2009, 01:10 AM

The rotor head IMHO should be leading the mast not following.

Why is that Mark?

I'd be interested to know why it would make a difference.

SamL

11-14-2009, 02:50 AM

There is something that just don't look right about the side on shoot of the UFO, the rotor head is so far behind the mast, the rotor head IMHO should be leading the mast not following.

That has always been an issue with the UFO design, as the undercarriage legs were hard bolted to the the rear bulk head. This means they sit in front of the head, and will cause very early rotation, including increasing its takeoff distance. But this has nothing to do with its flight.
The other thing you will notice in the picture is the different push rod controls on the 2 machines. One is rather conventional, and the other uses small levers up on the head cheek plates.

Regards SamL...........

Terry

11-14-2009, 11:55 AM

That has always been an issue with the UFO design, as the undercarriage legs were hard bolted to the the rear bulk head. This means they sit in front of the head, and will cause very early rotation, including increasing its takeoff distance. But this has nothing to do with its flight.
The other thing you will notice in the picture is the different push rod controls on the 2 machines. One is rather conventional, and the other uses small levers up on the head cheek plates.

Regards SamL...........

The photo above is actually of Neville's and another UFO. Neville's, the deceased, is in the foreground, RAZ, and I cannot see how the controls are connected. The cheek plates and head are entirely different from the other, and apparently very different from factory design. Though 70 years old, Neville was apparently a mechanic and machinist by trade.

I suppose they all would do hang tests to determine the rotor head position. Yet with so much distance between the rotor head and the seats, it must drastically change performance between one and two passenger loading.

For the beauty of it all, it does make me wonder at the large flat panel area presented in yaw and pitch.

karlbamforth

11-14-2009, 04:23 PM

There is something that just dont look right about the side on shoot of the UFO, the rotor head is so far behind the mast, the rotor head IMHO should be leading the mast not following.

I've had another look at this Mark, and I do agree it "looks" a bit odd and out of balance. Looks do not tell the whole story tho.

I'm an Engineer by trade and my earlier question was prompted by the fact that I don't see what difference it would make from an engineering point of view as long as the head was in the "right" place.

bones

11-14-2009, 05:49 PM

SamL

11-15-2009, 03:04 AM

I've had another look at this Mark, and I do agree it "looks" a bit odd and out of balance. Looks do not tell the whole story tho.

I'm an Engineer by trade and my earlier question was prompted by the fact that I don't see what difference it would make from an engineering point of view as long as the head was in the "right" place.

If the machines axis of rotation during take off is the main wheel axles, then where is the Rotor Lift Vector (RTV) when full backstick applied. Well with a machine which has its mains setback behind the head, its RTV is way ahead of the mains. This means the rotors need to produce a greater amount of lift before they will rotate the machine. This allows you to spin your blades up quicker as the disc axis/angle is at its greatest for longer.
If the machine has its head behind the mains, then the RTV is closer to the machines axles and the machine will rotate much, much earlier causing you to lower the disc axis which inturn slows the rate at which your blades spin up, inturn causing a longer takeoff distance.
Look how far the GT Gyroplane KRUZA wheels are set back from the head.

Remember, this has nothing to do with the machine during flight, but only its take off distance.

Regards SamL......................

karlbamforth

11-15-2009, 03:31 AM

If the machines axis of rotation during take off is the main wheel axles, then where is the Rotor Lift Vector (RTV) when full backstick applied. Well with a machine which has its mains setback behind the head, its RTV is way ahead of the mains. This means the rotors need to produce a greater amount of lift before they will rotate the machine. This allows you to spin your blades up quicker as the disc axis/angle is at its greatest for longer.
If the machine has its head behind the mains, then the RTV is closer to the machines axles and the machine will rotate much, much earlier causing you to lower the disc axis which inturn slows the rate at which your blades spin up, inturn causing a longer takeoff distance.
Look how far the GT Gyroplane KRUZA wheels are set back from the head.

Remember, this has nothing to do with the machine during flight, but only its take off distance.

Regards SamL......................

Thanks Sam, But I was interested if Mark had an engineering reason for putting the rotorhead in front or behind the mast. He has answered my question.

karlbamforth

11-15-2009, 03:34 AM

Its just that every gyro i have flown with the rotor head in front of the mast flew better than the "1" that i flew with the rotor head behind the mast, this one just didnt feel like the machine wanted to fly, for the want of better words.
Like i said i got no proof, IMHO only here :yo:
I agree as long as the hang test ect are right it shouldnt make any difference.

Thanks Mark,

For a while there I thought you knew some secret I had missed. LOL.
I do agree it doesn't look right.

SamL

12-03-2009, 01:18 AM

Just the other day I was shown the UFO Helithruster latest aircraft flight manual.
The more I looked at it, the more it looked like the one used by GT Gyroplanes KRUZA. The only difference was the fonts used and some of the flight and performance data. Then final conformation came when viewing the machines velocity curve and seeing it was identical, including the hand drawn graph, curves and registration on that page being G-800 (Kruza 1, "prototype" reg was G-800)
This just shows the amount of smoke and mirrors used by this company to market this machine. Just hope who ever signed off the flight manual checked the flight data against the machines real performance.
Just my final 2 bob

Regards SamL..................:flame::boom:

troed@aon.at

12-03-2009, 10:22 PM

NOW the side doors of KRUZA look perfect and give ample sight downwards left and right, good job !

PTKay

12-04-2009, 12:58 AM

...
This just shows the amount of smoke and mirrors used by this company to market this machine. Just hope who ever signed off the flight manual checked the flight data against the machines real performance.

I was following the development of UFO since 5 years with great interest,
and growing disbelieve....

I liked, like many others of you did, the look and design of the machine.

But the statistics is devastating.
We have almost no reports of real flight data from owners flying more than
just a few hours, and a horrifying record of crashes and death...

Taking the risk of being labelled "UFO basher" I would like to start a warning
and information action bringing up to the public attention the dangers of
flying this machine.

Recent development of two seat closed cockpit machines with perfect
safety record give finally a chance to the gyrocopter industry to
emerge from a limbo of "dangerous toy" image, it was entertaining for years.

Such contraptions and "smoke and mirror" companies like UFO
are a threat to the whole industry, throwing it back again into limbo times...

So, as I used to be a "RAF basher", after RAF finally went down
the road of the dodo, I am officially starting the "UFO bashing campaign",
until it also follows the RAF and dodo...

:boink: