Engine Availability

baronpilot

Newbie
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
544
Location
Auburn, IN
Aircraft
Baron B55, Bonanza V35, Brantly B2B
Total Flight Time
2500
From the limited research I have done it appears that the supply of T62-32 engines is beginning to dry up and many of those that remain for sale are going for $7-$8k on an as-is basis.

I think the engine is a great fit for the Helicycle, but eventually they will dry up along with the remining NOS compressor wheels, etc. Considering that the demand for such an engine would only be a hundred or so per year I would suspect that a newly built engine would be $50k or so which is not feasible. Those that thought they could do it for less (Innodyn) ended up shutting down in the middle of the night and were never heard from again.

I feel that unless a reliable 4-stroke that is light enough to work in the Helicycle or a DI 2-stroke comes along there could be a real engine problem for the machine. The Mosquito is using a nice little 2-stroke, but you still have to deal with the mid-range power leaning problems associated with running a 2-stroke engine in a constant speed application such as a helicopter.

It is tough to beat the power to weight ratio the T62 supplies.

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:

StanFoster

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
16,955
Location
Paxton, Il
Aircraft
Helicycle N360SF
Total Flight Time
1250
Baron- Eagle R&D are working on making their own turbine components including the turbine wheel itself. That T-62 is a sweet powerplant, and I have never had so much power to gross weight flying my butt around. If the economy were better, I would have a spare turbine laying around. Stan
 

baronpilot

Newbie
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
544
Location
Auburn, IN
Aircraft
Baron B55, Bonanza V35, Brantly B2B
Total Flight Time
2500
Stan,

That would be great! I just have a hard time thinking that they can build an engine for less than $20k or so. The cheap price on the T62 made the Helicycle a very attractive machine. One other problem could be the price of fuel for many people. 12-13 GPH at $5 is hard enough for many, but at $10 it may keep the majority on the ground. A 5 GPH or so 4-stroke might be forced into the marketplace.

Either way, I am sure the demand will be met. BTW, I sent you another email :)
 

StanFoster

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
16,955
Location
Paxton, Il
Aircraft
Helicycle N360SF
Total Flight Time
1250
Baron- I imagine it will be some time before they pull off making the turbine components, but they are hard at work doing it. The fuel consumption is a small price to pay to have such a powerplant so smoothly and powerfully running the helicopter. You just have to experience it to know what I mean. I have more fun per gallon with this helicopter than I ever have had. My yearly fuel budget is actually less as I find myself so content after each flight, that I savor it longer between flights. I fly less hours, but am having the time of my life. I went out real early this morning just thinking of other mods to do to it. Thinking about flying it is almost as much fun. Go figure? Stan
 

baronpilot

Newbie
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
544
Location
Auburn, IN
Aircraft
Baron B55, Bonanza V35, Brantly B2B
Total Flight Time
2500
Stan,

I love your enthusiasm. People like you are what makes machines like Helicycles possible for all to enjoy. I agree that the turbine is the way to go and that the fuel is currently a small price to pay. With that said, if the price to fly becomes $130 per hour in fuel it will keep many people on the ground. A 4-stroke burning $65 per hour would really help those on a tight budget.

I am only planning to fly 50 hours per year, so it is not a big deal to me.
 

StanFoster

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
16,955
Location
Paxton, Il
Aircraft
Helicycle N360SF
Total Flight Time
1250
Baron- Every aircraft I have flown has been a motivator in itself to make me do what is necessary to keep enough funds available to support my flying habit. Now I am addicted to kersosene, and will take on an extra job to keep my two 55 gallon drums full of kerosene. I fly less hours, but enjoy my flying much more. We all are wired differently, and for me, I am obsessed with the ability to land and take off most anywhere, and flying without airspeed. If this doesn't interest someone much, and their flying is from airport to airport only, then I would say its silly to fly a helicopter, and go with a gyro instead. You can't beat a gyro for getting the biggest bang for a buck..........unkess the helicopter bug has bitten you! Stan
 

baronpilot

Newbie
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
544
Location
Auburn, IN
Aircraft
Baron B55, Bonanza V35, Brantly B2B
Total Flight Time
2500
Stan,

I agree 100%. I had more fun in my Brantly than just about every aircraft I owned. There is something about the majic carpet ride that is fascinating every time you do it.

If you watched the video of the Iskra Jet I sent you you will see what high fuel prices did for those planes. When I bought that plane in 1998 Kerosene was 59 cents per gallon and it burned 135 gallons per hour. Parts were readily available. At that time the plane was worth roughly $125k.

Today, kerosene is $4.00. The plane still burns 135 GPH and parts are still (even more so) available. You can buy one easily for $30k, but it will now cost you $600 per hour in fuel instead of $100. You cannot afford to even keep current in the plane. I burned 8000 gallons in 6 months. That would be $32k today.

It's all relevant I guess. Even at $10 I would probably still fly the helicopter, but many would not. Those that can afford $10+ fuel probably will be flying MD500s instead since money is no object. It would be bad for the sport to not have a more fuel efficient power plant if needed. To keep production costs down there needs to be a lot of the machines flying to spread the production costs. If we lose too many people parts will either be ridiculously expensive or they will cease to be available. Just look at the prices of airplanes like the Beechcraft Baron. 5 years ago a really nice B55 Baron was $250k+. Today, they are $125k or less. Fuel will be the primary concern going forward.
 

StanFoster

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
16,955
Location
Paxton, Il
Aircraft
Helicycle N360SF
Total Flight Time
1250
Baron- Maybe I need to figure how to turn dads corn or soybeans into bio fuel that my turbine will burn! Just auger out some of dads grain, distill it and burn it! Ha. Stan
 

baronpilot

Newbie
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
544
Location
Auburn, IN
Aircraft
Baron B55, Bonanza V35, Brantly B2B
Total Flight Time
2500
Yea, that would work.

OR - you could flip the kid at the local McDonalds a $20 and pump out all of their used fryer oil :spy:
 

hillberg

Active Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
3,047
Location
Low Earth Orbit
Pick up jet fuel waste (From the tank truck & tankfarm sample sumping) They go through lots & it cheaper for them than Hazmet removal. ask the fuel guy. . . .
 

scott heger

Custom-made Troublemaker
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
1,635
Location
Southern California
Aircraft
SportCopter Bell 206L-1
Total Flight Time
1350
The T-32 is a nice little engine. I had two NOS new zero hour ones that I sold to a guy "down under" a few years back. Wish I still had them. However they are very inefficient for turbine engines. Let me put it this way, You get one passenger seat for 13-15 gallons a hour in a two bladed helicopter. My Bell 206L1 has seven seats and burns 30 gallons per hour. But they are cheap engines to purchase, you can buy two T-32's for the cost of one Bell helicopter blade! Vertical aviation is always more expensive to enjoy. I have a small fuel truck and my last 1,000 gallon bulk purchase (gulp)was $2.60/gallon a few months ago , or about $80 a hour. Believe me, the fuel is the least cost of flying a turbine helicopter. Because eI don't fly that much every year, I think my cost of maintenance, hanger rental, insurance and parts are about 8-10 times that much. Oh and those two flights I took this week in it……..PRICELESS memories……every time is a magic carpet ride, and it is still as exciting and fun as when I was a new pilot 40 years ago..

Scott Heger, Laguna Niguel, Ca N86SH
 
Last edited:

Thiennguyen

Newbie
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
14
Location
Tân Phú,Đồng Nai, Việt Nam
From the limited research I have done it appears that the supply of T62-32 engines is beginning to dry up and many of those that remain for sale are going for $7-$8k on an as-is basis.

I think the engine is a great fit for the Helicycle, but eventually they will dry up along with the remining NOS compressor wheels, etc. Considering that the demand for such an engine would only be a hundred or so per year I would suspect that a newly built engine would be $50k or so which is not feasible. Those that thought they could do it for less (Innodyn) ended up shutting down in the middle of the night and were never heard from again.

I feel that unless a reliable 4-stroke that is light enough to work in the Helicycle or a DI 2-stroke comes along there could be a real engine problem for the machine. The Mosquito is using a nice little 2-stroke, but you still have to deal with the mid-range power leaning problems associated with running a 2-stroke engine in a constant speed application such as a helicopter.

It is tough to beat the power to weight ratio the T62 supplies.

Any thoughts?
Chào bạn Baronpilot, tôi là Thiện và mới tham gia diễn đàn này.Tôi tiếng anh rất tệ, nhưng tôi có thể hiểu điều bạn đang nói.Tôi đồng ý với bạn. Một động cơ 4 thì bền bỉ và tiết kiệm nhiên liệu dành cho những ai muốn cắt giảm chi phí bay và tài chính yếu,trong đó có tôi.Tôi đang chuẩn bị xây dựng một helicopter trong khi chỉ có được 500 $.Ươc mơ của tôi thật xa vời.Môt động cơ EJ22 subara là đắt rồi,động cơ turbine t62 lại là ước mơ lớn. Và động cơ 2 stroke thì ko bền,hao nhiên liệu, luật pháp Việt Nam ko cho nhập khẩu nữa.Tôi chỉ có thể dành dụm để mua được một động cơ 4 stroke đã qua sử dụng thôi.Ko dám mơ đến động cơ turbine,nó quá tuyệt vời rồi!Vậy đâu là giải pháp cho những người không có điều kiện như tôi?Tôi có một đam mê được bay như mọi người!
 
Last edited:

Gray

Newbie
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
2
Location
SoCal
via google translate:

Baronpilot Hello, I'm new Compassion and proceed nay.Toi very bad english, but I can understand what you're noi.Toi agree with you. A 4 stroke engine durability and fuel savings for those who want to cut costs and weak financial flight, including me.I was preparing to build a helicopter while only get $ 500 .Uoc dream voi.Mot away my EJ22 engine is expensive subara then, t62 turbine engine is a fortune. And 2 stroke engines are not reliable, fuel, Vietnam Law for import nua.Toi not only can save to buy a 4-stroke engine used thoi.Ko dream of turbine engine , it is too great then! So what is the solution for those who do not have conditions like me? I have a passion to fly like everyone!
 

hawk_chpl

NightHawk
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
4
Location
Kirchen
Aircraft
AS350 BA/B2/B3, AS355N
Total Flight Time
> 4000 h
Greetings from Germany to all of you... :)

Greetings from Germany to all of you... :)

... a private aircraft operator in Germany pays for 1L Jet A1 the same amount of money as you pay for 1 gallon and I think it's 1,5USD for 1L diesel fuel. This matter of fact as well as the fact that we should not go on to pollute the atmosphere of our planet by burning oil based fuels. The T62-32 engine is not a certified aircraft engine and the Helicycle is a experimental aircraft... To modify the engines fuel injection system should not be a problem as long as the engine is working properly. These thoughts brought me to Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Injection System - Canadian Patent # 2,067,735. An injector system comprising an improved method and apparatus useful in the production of a hydrogen-containing fuel gas from water in a process in which the dielectric property of water and/or a mixture of water and other components determines a resonant condition that produces a breakdown of the atomic bonding of atoms in the water molecule. The injector delivers a mixture of water mist, ionized gases, and non-combustible gas to a zone or locus within which the breakdown process leading to the release of elemental hydrogen from water molecules occurs. This invention relates to a method and apparatus useful in producing thermal combustive energy from the hydrogen component of water…
That invention is a microminiaturized water fuel cell and permits the direct injection of water, and its simultaneous transformation into a hydrogen-containing fuel, in a combustion zone, such as a jet engine like the T62-32 turbine engine.
In a basic outline, an injector regulates the introduction into a combustion zone of process constituents and sets up a fuel mixture condition permitting combustion. That combustion condition is triggered simultaneously with injector operation in real time correspondence with control parameters for the process constituents.
In the fuel mixture condition that is created by the injector, water (H2O) is atomized into a fine spray and mixed with ionized ambient air gases and other non-combustible gases such as nitrogen, argon and other rare gases, and water vapor. (Exhaust gas produced by the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen is a non-combustible water vapor. This water vapor and other inert gases resulting from combustion may be recycled from an exhaust outlet in the injector system back into the input mixture of non-combustible gases). The fuel mix is introduced at a consistent flow rate maintained under a predetermined pressure. Stanley Meyer had resolved problem with the burning velocity of hydrogen = 2650-3250 mm./sec. versus 370-450 mm./sec. of that of gasoline, he reduced the burning velocity of the hydrogen gas...
Has anyone thought about that too? Or has anyone already first hand experience with "Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Injection System"?
Would this kind of engine modification of interest to you?
I would be happy to read about your thoughts, idea's as well as concerns ;)
 

Doug Riley

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
6,397
This is gibberish.

Water is hydrogen that has already burned; it is a liquid ash. The energy released by the combination of hydrogen and oxygen is already gone by the time you have water. In chemist lingo, the combination of hydrogen and oxygen to create water is an exothermic (heat-releasing) reaction. See: Hindenburg disaster, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

If you separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, you must ADD energy. Again in chemist lingo, this is an endothermic (heat added) reaction. The process is known as electrolysis. No "resonant condition" will change that fact; it's a basic truth of chemistry.

All "inventions" that supposedly extract combustible hydrogen from water must have a net energy input; they are energy consumers, not energy providers.

If there were big deposits of elemental hydrogen buried in the ground, we could, indeed, burn the stuff to obtain heat (with simple steam as a byproduct). If only. But there isn't, and we can't.

Using electrolysis, we can make hydrogen to use as a fuel if we find it convenient to do so. But the energy to make it must come from somewhere: nukes, oil, solar, buffalo chips, whatever. There's no energy hidden in water.
 

ckurz7000

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
3,444
Location
Vienna
Aircraft
ArrowCopter
But, Doug, can we not recycle the water from the exhaust and use it in the "fuel atomizer" to be converted into a combustable gas mixture? That way all you would only ever need was a gallon of water that just gets recirculated inside the engine? Almost like cooling water :) :) :)

I think I'll patent that idea. I also thought of a great name: perpetuum mobile.

Greetings, -- Chris.
 

RangeFlyer72

Junior Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
69
Location
El Paso
Aircraft
C175/O-360CS
Total Flight Time
3,912
But, Doug, can we not recycle the water from the exhaust and use it in the "fuel atomizer" to be converted into a combustable gas mixture? That way all you would only ever need was a gallon of water that just gets recirculated inside the engine? Almost like cooling water :) :) :)

I think I'll patent that idea. I also thought of a great name: perpetuum mobile.

Greetings, -- Chris.
You looking for investors?:lol:
Dave
 

hawk_chpl

NightHawk
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
4
Location
Kirchen
Aircraft
AS350 BA/B2/B3, AS355N
Total Flight Time
> 4000 h
Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Injection System - Canadian Patent # 2,067,735

Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Injection System - Canadian Patent # 2,067,735

... a private aircraft operator in Germany pays for 1L Jet A1 the same amount of money as you pay for 1 gallon and I think it's 1,5USD for 1L diesel fuel. This matter of fact as well as the fact that we should not go on to pollute the atmosphere of our planet by burning oil based fuels. The T62-32 engine is not a certified aircraft engine and the Helicycle is a experimental aircraft... To modify the engines fuel injection system should not be a problem as long as the engine is working properly. These thoughts brought me to Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Injection System - Canadian Patent # 2,067,735. An injector system comprising an improved method and apparatus useful in the production of a hydrogen-containing fuel gas from water in a process in which the dielectric property of water and/or a mixture of water and other components determines a resonant condition that produces a breakdown of the atomic bonding of atoms in the water molecule. The injector delivers a mixture of water mist, ionized gases, and non-combustible gas to a zone or locus within which the breakdown process leading to the release of elemental hydrogen from water molecules occurs. This invention relates to a method and apparatus useful in producing thermal combustive energy from the hydrogen component of water…
That invention is a microminiaturized water fuel cell and permits the direct injection of water, and its simultaneous transformation into a hydrogen-containing fuel, in a combustion zone, such as a jet engine like the T62-32 turbine engine.
In a basic outline, an injector regulates the introduction into a combustion zone of process constituents and sets up a fuel mixture condition permitting combustion. That combustion condition is triggered simultaneously with injector operation in real time correspondence with control parameters for the process constituents.
In the fuel mixture condition that is created by the injector, water (H2O) is atomized into a fine spray and mixed with ionized ambient air gases and other non-combustible gases such as nitrogen, argon and other rare gases, and water vapor. (Exhaust gas produced by the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen is a non-combustible water vapor. This water vapor and other inert gases resulting from combustion may be recycled from an exhaust outlet in the injector system back into the input mixture of non-combustible gases). The fuel mix is introduced at a consistent flow rate maintained under a predetermined pressure. Stanley Meyer had resolved problem with the burning velocity of hydrogen = 2650-3250 mm./sec. versus 370-450 mm./sec. of that of gasoline, he reduced the burning velocity of the hydrogen gas...
Water is hydrogen that has already burned; it is a liquid ash. The energy released by the combination of hydrogen and oxygen is already gone by the time you have water. In chemist lingo, the combination of hydrogen and oxygen to create water is an exothermic (heat-releasing) reaction. See: Hindenburg disaster, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
If you separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, you must ADD energy. Again in chemist lingo, this is an endothermic (heat added) reaction. The process is known as electrolysis. No "resonant condition" will change that fact; it's a basic truth of chemistry.
All "inventions" that supposedly extract combustible hydrogen from water must have a net energy input; they are energy consumers, not energy providers.
If there were big deposits of elemental hydrogen buried in the ground, we could, indeed, burn the stuff to obtain heat (with simple steam as a byproduct). If only. But there isn't, and we can't.
Using electrolysis, we can make hydrogen to use as a fuel if we find it convenient to do so. But the energy to make it must come from somewhere: nukes, oil, solar, buffalo chips, whatever. There's no energy hidden in water.
Reply With Quote
Ok my friend you didn't get the point,
Stanley Meyer had already invented a water splitting device that can produce H hydrogen on demand, he also invented a conversion kit for turbine engines, rocked engine as well as for internal combustion engines. Stan has received Patents for his inventions in most country's. He also wrote a book S.Meyer "The Birth of New Technology" he describes how his inventions work, also math calculations and drawings are included.

Biografie
In 1988, Stanley Meyer modified a regular gas powered motor to run off of any type of water, including salt water by converting the H2o into Hydrogen and Oxygen in a very efficient matter. It was estimated that the vehicle would be able to travel from Los Angeles to New York using about 22 gallons of water. He claimed that any gas powered motor can be modified to run off of this very earth-friendly fuel source. He was offered $1 billion by the automotive industry but turned it down because he wanted this invention to benefit humanity. Shortly afterwards, he was poisoned to death. This man may have improved the earth as we know it today, but unfortunately the large oil companies are too powerful to overcome. Help raise awareness of Stanley Meyer, and the destructive power of the large oil companies.
:rip:

please watch
http://youtu.be/8WiyJvsG5SY?list=PLUi4Y2lmGO2QHGYssYbK7yjyUmsVsUOfZ
Stanley Meyer - hydrogen-based fuel on demand in real-time - water to-fuel conversion process works at high efficiency -
pulsed direct current in the range from about 500 to 20,000 or more
volts at a frequency tuned to the resonant characteristic of the mixture. This frequency will typically lie within the range of from about 20 KHz to about 50 KHz,
Dr. Paul Czysz (NASA; MD;...) - evaluates Stanley Meyer's Inventions (zero point Energy Connections)
 

hawk_chpl

NightHawk
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
4
Location
Kirchen
Aircraft
AS350 BA/B2/B3, AS355N
Total Flight Time
> 4000 h
hey ckurz7000, wenn man keine Ahnung hat und davon ne ganze Menge, sollte man die 1000 Möglichkeiten nutzen und die Arschbacken zusammen kneifen damit die Ködel drin bleiben!!!
Und RangeFlyer72, nun zu dir... was gescheites hast du auch nicht bei zu tragen "super" zeugt wirklich von Intelligenz... du Genie!!! :D
 

trunkmunki

Newbie
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
31
Location
Winterport, ME
Just wanted to bump this topic.

any word on engine availability or progress on Eagle's in-house solution? The fact that the engine is no longer part of the kit is a bit concerning.
 
Top