First Calidus in Poland

PTKay

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
3,160
Location
Poland
Aircraft
Socata Rallye
Today I had the opportunity to have a look at the first Calidus in Poland.

Very nice machine, well manufactured, but really small compared to Xenon.

Maybe next week I will have the opportunity to fly-test it.
 

Attachments

  • Calidus 004.jpg
    Calidus 004.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Calidus 005.jpg
    Calidus 005.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 0
  • Calidus 008.jpg
    Calidus 008.jpg
    37.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Calidus 009.jpg
    Calidus 009.jpg
    31 KB · Views: 0
  • Calidus 007.jpg
    Calidus 007.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Calidus 010.jpg
    Calidus 010.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 0
really small

It really looks small from outside but I found it's well roomy inside.
Did you try to nest your hulk in it?
 
I certainly have no problem, I am just 175 cm and 69 kg, (5' 9'', 150 lb)
but getting in to the back seat is kind of tricky. :)

Just completely different feeling by comparison to Xenon.
 
Last edited:
Back seat drivers

Back seat drivers

You certainly wouldn't get lanky pilots in front AND back seats.
With a tall pilot in front, you have to move the seat back rearwards to accommodate long legs, which compromises the space available for a rear stick.
Not an issue with side by side cockpits.
IMHO,
Clive
 
This may go well in the Asian market, it is super aerodynamic, if the landing gear presents no problem or the tail structure and the engine turns out ok then I think it will find a market. The only thing that visible bothers me is the torsional loads on the tube supporting the tail .

Tony
 
The only thing that visible bothers me is the torsional loads on the tube supporting the tail .
My concern also, the welding quality on the tubes connection
is rather poor, I took a picture, but unfortunately out of focus.
 

Attachments

  • Calidus 011.jpg
    Calidus 011.jpg
    10.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Hi Paul

Is that 4130 or aluminum ? To me that connection shoult be double side gussets and the tube should be at a minium 4130

Tony
 
Hi Jon

Thanks for the info, better stainless than aluminum for sure, I don't know much about the fatigue properities of stainless, I am quite sure there was good engineering put into the gyro, it's just that those keels that are made that way make me a little nervous when it comes to torque and strain factors that a large (and adaquate ) tail system can produce along with vibration factors when you have a large mass (not weight) on a extended moment arm like that.

Tony
 
Looks good PTKay. Let us know how it flies if you get the chance. I like the color , it matches the Audi in the background.

As far as the welds , (I am not a professional) , but I have TIG welded ornamental stainless (and made it look good) but it was never as strong as professional welding (that didn't look as good as mine). Don't get me to weld your aircraft :)

Hope you get to fly it Paul. Very nice.
 
Paul
I got the same impression about the weld quality when I looked at one in France. I did a lot of TIG welding for the food industry a long time ago and I'm sure I could have done better when I was welding regularly.

Yes they're 304 stainless steel. The fatigue proerties of stainless are about the same as for 4130, that is the fatigue strength is about 45% of tensile strength, but since the tensile strength of 304 is about half that of 4130 you need a twice the weight of stainless to handle the same amount of stress (tensile or fatigue) as the same tube cross section of 4130.
There's nothing wrong with using stainless (it's easier to weld well than 4130) providing the design keeps the stress levels within the limits. In theory if you built two identical gyro frames one in 304 and the other in 4130 and the stress levels were within the limits of the 304 then the 4130 gyro could handle an exceptional load (say a heavy landing) of about twice the force of the 304 gyro before the frame bent or failed.

If I remember well, to carry torsional loads the round tube is a better compromise than a square or rectangular tube of the same material/weight but worse for bending loads.

I must say that the Calidus looks very sexy and they seem to have really worked at the streamlining but I haven't any idea how much real engineering went into it. When you read the recent threads about Magni stability and Xenon problems etc you wonder how much these guys really know about what they're doing.

Mike G
 
With a tall pilot in front, you have to move the seat back rearwards to accommodate long legs, which compromises the space available for a rear stick.
Not an issue with side by side cockpits.
IMHO,
Clive
The Calidus is a toy compared to Xenon.

With the cabin width higher than Cessna 182 and side by side configuration
xenon is a class for itself in the LSA gyrocopter category.

Also M-24 cannot be compared.

If you think about any serious law enforcement or patrol service,
Xenon wins hands down.
 
Paul
I got the same impression about the weld quality when I looked at one in France. I did a lot of TIG welding for the food industry a long time ago and I'm sure I could have done better when I was welding regularly.
I work also alot in he food and pharmaceutical industry, a lot with stainless steel.
i can tell you, there are maybe less structural loads, but often pressure loads,
and such a weld would immediately eliminate such an element by a safety audit.

The safety procedures in food and pharma are sometimes striking similar
to those in aviation. A small mistake there can be very easily deadly.

Yes they're 304 stainless steel. ... the 4130 gyro could handle an exceptional load (say a heavy landing) of about twice the force of the 304 gyro before the frame bent or failed.
I think it was discussed in detail here on the forum, and i have similar doubts.

I must say that the Calidus looks very sexy and they seem to have really worked at the streamlining but I haven't any idea how much real engineering went into it.

Not much, basically it's just the cabin designed for optics put over the MTO,
which is the copy of ELA (they used to be the dealer for ELA in Germany).
ELA in turn is a copy of Magni...

so trully not much engineering.


... Xenon problems etc. you wonder how much these guys really know about what they're doing.

Mike G

...Xenon problems were minor (door, prerotator) and more or less in the teething period, ironed out in the meantime.

Xenon has no fatal accident on the account, 10 incidents after which
all tthe frames where rebuild and fly again.

MT has 23 fatalities under their belt, 54 accidents and incidents,
most of them frame loss.
 
... I am quite sure there was good engineering put into the gyro,
I am not sure at all, a copy of a copy of a copy...
See my post above.
it's just that those keels that are made that way make me a little nervous ...

Me too, I am not sure if I will take this test ride next week. :)
 
My other concern are the hub controls.
(2 last images)
Are this push-pull rods or cables?
 
That thing looks fast sitting still!

Looks will sell!

PS:
As to size... I never have a problem with that, what are you talking about?:boink:
 
Hi


"Xenon has no fatal accident on the account, 10 incidents after which
all tthe frames where rebuild and fly again."


I'm not sure that all the damaged examples have been re-built to flying standards




N4462J - down in the water - re-built ?

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/sep/25/reported-helicopter-crash-
pond-ravens-run/


N75506 - early version - re-built ? last seen for sale on ebay


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tEQSc_GhG...wr0/s1600/crash_060628_pahrump_nevada_usa.jpg


Any update welcome - thanks


Steve in UK

http://xenongyroblog.blogspot.com/
 
N4462J - down in the water - re-built ?
According to Raphael, yes, it was just wet, turned around,
engine needed some help...
N75506 - early version - re-built ? last seen for sale on ebay
As you say, early version, built from kit, with Hirth f30 engine,
has very little to do with Xenon 2, factory build by Celier Aviation,
except for the looks.
You are right, not rebuild, because the owner was not wishing to
bring it to the Xenon 2 standard.
 
Hello,

some of my findings on the Calidus.

The controls from the walking beam to the rotor head are indeed push-pull rods. This has been discussed as being a possible source of failure.

I miss the accessability of the controls which I learnt to like on the MTOs. Basically you can only check if the controls move, everything is under covers.

Seating is awkward, I am not built like Arnold S. but the retention belts of the seat-back cut into the sides under the arms. The passenger's feet touch the pilot's elbows, if the back seat pedals are flipped forward for the instructor. OK, if you are on asphalt, not so great on on a dirty lawn.

The buttons for PTT, pitch and roll-trim and pre-rotator are co-located to closely that you are likely to press more than one.

The roll trim, on the other hand, is great!

The stick ergonomics are not great, you cannot rest your arm anywhere on normal flight attitude. It comes back too far for people with strong stomach muscles :))).

I have to say that the Calidus is very hard to fly, compared to the MTOs. I blame it on the even shorter rudder:
Any change of throttle results in violent yaw movements. In gusty conditions during landing this is a nightmare. You have to learn to automatically couple your throttle hand with your feet so that you counteract any throttle movement immediately. And this is what I felt, coming from the MTOs, which already have this flaw.

Rudder and front wheel are hard coupled. Once the front wheel lifts, you have to step into the rudder to the right. If now the front wheel bounces down, you are in a time warp ("its just a jump to the ra ra ra ra right").

They could have done better.

Kai.
 
Top