New Millennium

Hi Chuck, you have been around for years in Helicopters, do you think this would be a Concern ( nose tuck ) in my Helicom Commuter H-1B. if so I would like input so when my business partner test flys it for me he can be aware of any issues it may have. my helicopter is 620 pounds empty.
 
I've asked Todd to move the last 4 posts to the Mini-500 thread under helicopters. The sole purpose is to gather all the Mini-500 MH-1 technical discussions under one thread, where we can talk good and solid technical things. No trashing anybody, clean technical stuff. If I want to discuss say, a transmission problem, I would like educated answers.

I hope all are in favour of this.

Thanks, Francois

What thread do you mean Francois?
 
Does anybody know the history of the airframe development for the Hughes 269 series? There are rumors heard in many places that the spoiler-like airfoil above the cabin is intended to control the tuck that has been described here, but I've never seen anything that confirms or denies that rumor.
 
That spoiler that runs across the top of the cabin is for cabin vibration dampening function and not lifting purposes.
 
I remember reading it was initially added to help with airflow over the tail rotor (especially in autorotation), that would fit with the vibration reduction theme too. Get way out of trim in yaw in autorotation & things can get pretty interesting, as you guys both probably already know.

There was also a change made to the horizontal stabilizers on the TH-55's early on to help with the nose down tendency as well, reduced size & slat added.
 
That is absolutely correct. The nose down tendency was corrected by it but the effectiveness of it only comes into play above 47 knots.
 
I've voiced my personal opinion many times, the Mini-500 seems to have a more pronounced forward tuck, when suddenly loosing an engine, than other heli's. The combination of low time pilots, with sudden engine stoppages, just aggravates the situation. Look at the regular occurrence of tailstrikes, and near vertical impacts. I attribute part of it due to a couple of aerodynamical interactions found on the Mini-500. I fear the problem is going to migrate over to the MH-1.

Just a thought.

Bell 206
The Bell 206 has its HS located in the downwash of the rotors. Apparently, as the forward speed increases the downwash on the HS become less, since it is then subjected to the reduced induced velocity that is coming from the center of the disk.

Mini 500
IMHO, the rotor has little to no effect on the HS during hover. However, when the craft has forward velocity under power the HS is probably subjected to a downdraft. This downdraft probably disappears when the rotor's thrust is significantly reduced during forward flight.


Dave
 
Last edited:
From previous posts on this forum I expect to see hard rows to how for all parties involved. Probably some cease a desist orders. Parties are all claiming ownership of the old and new designs and what has come out of them. From what I gather they (Millennium) has not built from scratch all components of a newly designed helo. they have used a mini 500 as the basic design platform and rebuilt from there with a new frame component and powerplant with some mods to body panels and upgraded the instruments.
I have to have an interest as I too own a Mini which I would really love to have upgraded to an MH-1 or possibly a turbine. whichever I can most likely make happen and turn my helo into a safe operable aircraft.
 
I have to have an interest as I too own a Mini which I would really love to have upgraded to an MH-1 or possibly a turbine. whichever I can most likely make happen and turn my helo into a safe operable aircraft.

Just curious - how many flight hours are on your Mini-500?
 
Anyone can copy an experimental "design", there is no copy-right for the concept, unless it is type certified by the FAA
QUOTE]

Zoomer,

Where did you get that concept from? Type certification has nothing to do with copy-right law. Something either has been copy-righted and has protection, or it doesn't. Being experimental doesn't limit the right to copy-right an idea and being certified doesn't automatically copy-right an idea. Unless I misunderstand the basics of copy-right law, the statement above is totally off the mark. Anyone that KNOWS for sure, please let me know if I am wrong.
 
waterborne vessels

waterborne vessels

Anyone can copy an experimental "design", there is no copy-right for the concept, unless it is type certified by the FAA
QUOTE]

Zoomer,

Where did you get that concept from? Type certification has nothing to do with copy-right law. Something either has been copy-righted and has protection, or it doesn't. Being experimental doesn't limit the right to copy-right an idea and being certified doesn't automatically copy-right an idea. Unless I misunderstand the basics of copy-right law, the statement above is totally off the mark. Anyone that KNOWS for sure, please let me know if I am wrong.

From what we've all been able to determine, copyrights do not extend to three dimensional objects. They only cover two-dimensional objects except in the case of waterborne vessel hulls.

So the drawings would be covered under copyright, but not the airframe itself.

Seems odd, but it is how it is explained on copyright.gov.
 
Copyright:
the exclusive, legally secured right to publish, reproduce, and sell the matter and form of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work. Copyright is designed primarily to protect an artist, publisher, or other owner against any unauthorized copying of his works—as by reproducing the work in any material form, publishing it, performing it in public, filming it, broadcasting it, causing it to be distributed to subscribers, or making any adaptation of the work. A copyright supplies a copyright holder with a kind of monopoly over the created material, which assures him of both control over its use and the pecuniary benefits derived from it._

This material, from Encyclopedia Britannica no doubt is copyrighted.
 
From what we've all been able to determine, copyrights do not extend to three dimensional objects. They only cover two-dimensional objects except in the case of waterborne vessel hulls.

So the drawings would be covered under copyright, but not the airframe itself.

Seems odd, but it is how it is explained on copyright.gov.

Actually, you can copyright a work of sculpture for its artistic value, and that's 3-D, but only the aesthetic content is protected, not any functional purpose the object might also serve. That's true in general, even for drawings -- only the creative artistic component is protected. You could draw the same object in a different style or from a different viewpoint, and have a new work that doesn't infringe the copyright on the original. No drawing copyright will protect the functional aspects of the item appearing in the drawing.

By the way, the boat-hull statute provides only ten years of protection (17 USC section 1305), while copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (or up to 120 years for corporate work for hire) (17 USC 302).
 
From what we've all been able to determine, copyrights do not extend to three dimensional objects. They only cover two-dimensional objects except in the case of waterborne vessel hulls.

So the drawings would be covered under copyright, but not the airframe itself.

Seems odd, but it is how it is explained on copyright.gov.

Please speak for yourself Terry.

Thank you, Vance
 
From previous posts on this forum I expect to see hard rows to how for all parties involved. Probably some cease a desist orders.

The situation gets even more interesting.

The e-bay auction ended today and somebody purchased the "exclusive rights",
or whatever was for sale, for $12.100.

(Bidders:6 Bids:17 Time Ended:Feb-18-10 16:02:28 PST Duration:7 days)

I am wondering, if he will disclose himself.

:)
 
Please speak for yourself Terry.

Thank you, Vance

You are right!

What was I thinking?

I've been looking a little more at the dividing line between ideas and the expression of those ideas, and the Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Selden seems to have concreted how that still works today.
 
Last edited:
Top