McCulloch J-2 for sale

[SportCopter]

1972 McCulloch J-2 Serial # 089 equipped with a Lycoming, 180hp engine - 248 hours and only 50 hours since last major overhaul. In good condition It has been hangared for most of it's life here at Sport Copter. SERIOUS INQUIRIES ONLY!! Asking $38,000.00 or best offer. NO TRADES

 

[gyroplanes]

Just a note to let prospective buyers know that the PRA museum now has a supply of J-2 parts. Contact Glenn Bundy for info.

 

[SportCopter]

Price lowered - need production room

Price lowered - need production room

1972 McCulloch J-2 Serial # 089 equipped with a Lycoming, 180hp engine - 248 hours and only 50 hours since last major overhaul. In good condition It has been hangared for most of it's life here at Sport Copter. SERIOUS INQUIRIES ONLY!! Asking $38,000.00 or best offer. NO TRADES

This is a very rare machine. Flyable and very straight body. As we had mentioned this particular model has always been hangared. The FAA used to rent from us for flight training. We hate to see it go, but we need the production room. We have been holding on to this to go to a local museum but it's taking too long. Our loss is your gain.......now asking $33,000.00! Just in time for Christmas......would make a great stocking stuffer!

 

[Thechap]

Wow! $16,000 dollar drop in price.

 

[SandL]

that's only about £15,000 for a 180hp 3 seat jump gyro ! incredible, almost too cheap, what's the catch ? If only I lived in the USA.... if only... a real dream

 

[Fly Army]

that's only about £15,000 for a 180hp 3 seat jump gyro ! incredible, almost too cheap, what's the catch ? If only I lived in the USA.... if only... a real dream

I'm sure they'd put it in a box for you !

 

[GyroCFI]

If my feeble memory serves me right

If my feeble memory serves me right

There were some time-limited components that had to be changed at 300 hours, i believe the rudder cables and rotor bearing?

 

[GyroRon]

This is a very rare machine. Flyable and very straight body. As we had mentioned this particular model has always been hangared. The FAA used to rent from us for flight training. We hate to see it go, but we need the production room. We have been holding on to this to go to a local museum but it's taking too long. Our loss is your gain.......now asking $23,000.00! Just in time for Christmas......would make a great stocking stuffer!

Does this come with all logs and when was the last annual ? Is this the super version with the constant speed prop? And if not, is there much performance difference? This new price has my interest peaked

 

[MadMuz]

Wow, that is priceless!

Sorry you have to let it go..... it is a piece of gyrocopter history and something to be treasured..... I hope it finds a new home :yo:

 

[WaspAir]

that's only about £15,000 for a 180hp 3 seat jump gyro ! incredible, almost too cheap, what's the catch ? If only I lived in the USA.... if only... a real dream

No, it's only two seat, and it is not designed to jump. If you are very, very lightly loaded and you have a stiff wind, you can do an anemic jump, but conventional take-offs require a roll to about 45 mph before breaking ground. That can be pretty short (my old Super J-2 was always off within 200 feet), but it's not a jumper in practice or by design. It is intended for pre-spin to 125% of flight rpm before you start moving, so the ground roll is only to get airspeed, not rpm. Rotor rpm drops during the ground roll.

Does this come with all logs and when was the last annual ? Is this the super version with the constant speed prop? And if not, is there much performance difference? This new price has my interest peaked

From the pictures you can see the two-blade wooden fixed-pitch Sensenich prop (not the three blade metal constant speed Hartzell). There's about a 100 lb gross weight difference, and climb performance is better with the three blade set-up.

 

[WaspAir]

There were some time-limited components that had to be changed at 300 hours, i believe the rudder cables and rotor bearing?

Maybe a feeble memory, but nonetheless correct.

 

[SandL]

I stand corrected, 2 seat and not jump , I just thought with spinning rotors above flight RPM would give it jump. and looking at the photo it looks like 3 seats, I was wrong

 

[WaspAir]

It the rotor system had more mass in it, your assumption would be correct. The blades are fairly light (essentially the same construction as the aluminum Hughes 269 / Schweizer 300 blades, with a narrow chord and a 26 ft diameter), so there just isn't enough mass there to store much excess energy. The A&S 18, in contrast, has a 35 foot diameter rotor, and each blade weighs about 55 pounds (much larger chord, with birch/fiberglass/stainless construction), so there's a whole lot more rotating mass when you spin that up, and there's extra energy in that system to extract in the jump.

The J-2 is a nice comfy side-by-side seating arrangement, with a "bench" seat like old American cars. It's hinged and has a nice luggage bay underneath, but it only seats two.

 

[Monarchist]

Looks like a hell of a deal for someone!

 

[WaspAir]

No argument there. I really miss mine, but I already have a hangar full of toys as it is.

 

[TNVD]

This is a very rare machine. Flyable and very straight body. As we had mentioned this particular model has always been hangared. The FAA used to rent from us for flight training. We hate to see it go, but we need the production room. We have been holding on to this to go to a local museum but it's taking too long. Our loss is your gain.......now asking $23,000.00! Just in time for Christmas......would make a great stocking stuffer!

This is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY excellent deal and excellent machine....
I would like to see it in Swiss aviation museum here !!! ... need to convince local millionaires to sponsor it :usa2:

 

[Smack]

... but it's not a jumper in practice or by design. It is intended for pre-spin to 125% of flight rpm before you start moving, so the ground roll is only to get airspeed, not rpm. Rotor rpm drops during the ground roll.

WaspAir, the statement above prompts a "I don't understand what I thought that I understood, sorta, question". If I interpret correctly, 125% of flight RRPM is NOT producing the lift that 100% of flight RRPM produces (with forward speed).
So, over-speeding a gyroplane rotor does not produce lift? Forward ('airflow') speed is REQUIRED for lift? Is there a RRPM for this (any gyro?) that DOES produce airframe weight equivalent lift w/o forward airspeed? Is the difference between a helicopter's rotor and the gyroplane's rotor pitch angle (helicopter for thrust; gyroplane for autorotation) the key to this 'sufficient RRPM, but insufficient lift' puzzle in my head?
This confuses me as when a gyroplane flares just prior to landing, the RRPM is 100% flight (?) and forward airspeed is very low, so how is it making sufficient lift to gently lower the aircraft? Should I be thinking of it more as a high pressure/low pressure/cushion or air? I am confused on a basic principle...
thanks
Brian

 

[BEN S]

HORSESNOGGLES!!!
I talked at length with Jim about it the other night. Its just not in my deck of cards right now.
But....this machine DOES not belong in a museum when there are plenty of derelicts out there with timed out parts.
This machine NEEDS to be flying. There are so few examples of flying J2's it seems to me a crime to park one for all eternity.

 

[WaspAir]

WaspAir, the statement above prompts a "I don't understand what I thought that I understood, sorta, question". If I interpret correctly, 125% of flight RRPM is NOT producing the lift that 100% of flight RRPM produces (with forward speed).
So, over-speeding a gyroplane rotor does not produce lift? Forward ('airflow') speed is REQUIRED for lift? Is there a RRPM for this (any gyro?) that DOES produce airframe weight equivalent lift w/o forward airspeed? Is the difference between a helicopter's rotor and the gyroplane's rotor pitch angle (helicopter for thrust; gyroplane for autorotation) the key to this 'sufficient RRPM, but insufficient lift' puzzle in my head?
This confuses me as when a gyroplane flares just prior to landing, the RRPM is 100% flight (?) and forward airspeed is very low, so how is it making sufficient lift to gently lower the aircraft? Should I be thinking of it more as a high pressure/low pressure/cushion or air? I am confused on a basic principle...
thanks
Brian

The critical bit of information you are missing is that this is a 3-blade fully articulated rotor system, with controllable collective pitch and a symmetrical airfoil, not the simple fixed-collective teetering rotor system with asymmetrical airfoil that is found on lots of homebuilts.

For pre-spin on the J-2, the blades are placed in flat collective pitch and kept there while the rpm advances up to 125%. The symmetrical airfoil on these blade makes essentially NO lift in that configuration. In the take-off, the collective is raised to flight pitch and then kept there for the remainder of the flight, including landing. If you sit still on the end of the runway and run it up with the blades flat, and then raise the "spin up lever" (a combination of collective and clutch control) the aircraft will stand up on its oleo strut gear very distinctly and obviously because you've put some pitch on the blades and are now making lift. If you hold the spin-up lever in the flat pitch position, nothing happens except that your arm gets tired (it has a heavy spring force pushing it toward flight pitch).

Make sense now?
(If not, I can explain more thoroughly.)

 

[ckurz7000]

The paradox Brian seems to have encountered is that 125% of flight rpm do not translate into flight when on the ground, while 100% of flight rpm are well enough for flight when in the air.

The difference is that once you have pre-spun the rotor to 125% rpm and selected flight pitch, rotor rpm starts to decay. How quickly it decays has to do with the inertia of the rotor. The J-2 rotor is pretty light and hence has low inertia compared to an 18A. Therefore all it can do is make you get light on the struts but it won't lift you off the tarmac before its rpm have dropped below 100%.

When you're rolling forward, however, the rotor is being driven by the airflow and will not lose rpm below 100% and therefore lead to a normal take off. The difference is that when you're rolling you keep feeding energy into the rotor which is taken from the oncoming airstream. Sitting still on the runway this source of energy is not available and rpm drop quickly below 100%.

-- Chris.