 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / Rotary-wing / January 2010I Want One - I Want One - I Want One
http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.htm I Want One - I Want One - I Want One http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_media_files.htm I Want One - I Want One - I Want One > http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.htm > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I Want One - I Want One - I Want One Me too.... right up until I read this in the FAQ: "Question: Does the AirScooter auto-rotate? Answer: The AirScooter is designed for the recreational sport flyer and as such does not auto-rotate. The AirScooter is designed for recreational flying at low altitude where even traditional helicopters have little benefit from auto-rotation. Design efforts have been done on a ballistic emergency chute for the AirScooter."  SignatureboB Wing 70 U.S. Army Aviation (retired) Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK) > > http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.htm > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > have little benefit from auto-rotation. Design efforts have been done on > a ballistic emergency chute for the AirScooter." Yeah me too. That engine is a new design too so who knows how reliable it will be as used in the air scooter? No cyclic, swash plates, tail rotor etc is all great but if the engine quits, the belt breaks or anything else fails, you are history in this thing. Lawn Dart comes to mind with the designs that ignore the need for autorotation. The claim that low altitude helicopters have little benefit from autorotation is false. I've seen autos done from 40' agl and 40mph. I asked Airscooter what was available to the pilot at 40 and 40 and got the same kind of answer. If the Airscooter engine stops, the fixed pitch of the blades will cause the rotor to slow quickly and you will be in instant ka ka. I wouldn't think of one of these birds until I saw an engine out demonstrated by their test pilot. SignatureStu Fields Baby Belle driver www.vkss.com sfkf@iwvisp.com > > > http://www.airscooter.com/pages/airscooter_main.htm > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > rotor etc is all great but if the engine quits, the belt breaks or > anything else fails, you are history in this thing. Exactly what I was thinking. :-o Notice they try to placate the ignorant by saying that they're working on a "ballistic emergency chute." As Stu points out, if you're low enough to not need autorotative capabilities, you're not going to be anywhere near high enough for a ballistic emergency chute to do you any good either. No thanks! Steve R. > Lawn Dart comes to mind with the designs that ignore the need for > autorotation. The claim that low altitude helicopters have little benefit [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> rotor etc is all great but if the engine quits, the belt breaks or >> anything else fails, you are history in this thing. So would the chute be attached above the Jesus Nut? Otherwise if the blades are turning, where would you connect the chute? > Exactly what I was thinking. :-o > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>> rotor etc is all great but if the engine quits, the belt breaks or >>> anything else fails, you are history in this thing. From what I remember reading in gyro circles, one group was looking at mounting the chute on top of the rotor hub, attached via some kind of turn buckle. "Might" be a good idea but no one was brave enough to try it out. The only kit manufacturer that I know of that offers a ballistic chute on their gyro is Air Command. It's been a while since I've looked at their web site (www.aircommand.com) so I checked and a search showed that they offer a ballistic chute option on their two place machines. The one I saw for real was mounted below the gyro so if you ever set it off, you're going to be coming to the ground, "inverted." :-o I'm not sure I like that idea but it may be way better than the alternative. Again, I don't know if anyone's tried this yet. FWIW, Fly Safe, Steve R. > So would the chute be attached above the Jesus Nut? Otherwise if the > blades are turning, where would you connect the chute? [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** > From what I remember reading in gyro circles, one group was looking at > mounting the chute on top of the rotor hub, attached via some kind of > turn buckle. "Might" be a good idea but no one was brave enough to try > it out. probably a bad idea on a gyro. Weight above the gimbal head plays with flight control. > The only kit manufacturer that I know of that offers a ballistic chute > on their gyro is Air Command. It's been a while since I've looked at > their web site (www.aircommand.com) so I checked and a search showed > that they offer a ballistic chute option on their two place machines. > The one I saw for real was mounted below the gyro so if you ever set it > off, you're going to be coming to the ground, "inverted." Larry Neal developed that, I believe, when he was working with AC (he also centreline-thrusted their machines). Larry is now marketing his own line of gyros, including one that's roadable as a motorcycle. He promises a ballistic chute as a future option. The way the Air Command chute works is in two stages, in stage one it hangs you inverted, then when the rotation of the rotors is arrested, you pull handle #2, releasing the low-down attach point, and you drop around to normal orientation. No one has ever done it for real, and it has not been tested AFAIK with models, let alone full size. In theory it would work if everything went well and the pilot was conscious throughout. You'd probably want to consider a possible inverted landing at about 20-22 fps and construct an appropriate roll structure. A Spanish company that makes copies of the BRS chutes (under the "we're too small to be worth suing" licence apparently -- BRS are a bit cheesed about it) has installed some on gyros. I have seen this installation on an RAF and it is conceptually identical to Larry's Air Command install. I have heard that the Galaxy chute company, which I believe is Czech, has a gyro chute but haven't seen how they do it. I doubt the total number of ballistic chutes on rotorcraft worldwide reaches double digits. I know none has ever been deployed in angre. There is some talk that one of Larry's current dealers will assist in developing the chute including full size tests. A test pilot would bail out of a ballasted & instrumented gyro at altitude and then the ballistic would be fired by remote control. Win or lose, this would gather useful data, and it would be safe as the pilot would be down and away before the chute was fired. The tests will be done overseas where regulators are more cooperative and less timid than in the USA. > :-o I'm not sure I like that idea but it may be way better than the > alternative. Again, I don't know if anyone's tried this yet. Ballistic chutes have been saving lives for two decades on ULs, almost as long on experimentals, for five years on certified aircraft, and they're coming on jets. They would be big lifesavers if they could be made to work on gyroplanes, as the most typical gyroplane fatal is a tumble from around pattern altitude. They would also have potential for life savings on helicopters -- look at the double-fatal cop crash in Michigan last week. R22 went in vertically after apparent loss of power for reasons yet unknown. Witnesses reported he was hovering OGE at several hundred feet of altitiude. (Yes, he was operating in a dangerous part of the performance envelope, but he couldn't do what he was doing -- comb through a wooded area for a fleeing convict -- any other way, really). Of course, a chute isn't going to be much help on a fixed-pitch helicopter like the original subject of the thread. A gyro is always in autorotation, a helicopter has that option in most of its performance envelope, including the part where you always fly unless you can't avoid it. With a fixed-pitch helicopter, you are betting your life, or serious and painful injury, on the reliability of that motor. cheers -=K=- Rule #1: Don't hit anything big. Hi Kevin, Thanks for the response. I hadn't heard bout the two stage deployment you mention. Seems to me you've have to have plenty of altitude to have time for everything to stabilize inverted, then deploy the second stage to right the machine before landing. I'm not sure I'd want to go through the flip that would occur at that point! :-o Besides, it seems to me that gyros as a rule, don't fly high enough to take advantage of that? Of course, all it has to do is save one life to be worth it I suppose. At least no one's been forced to find out whether or not this will work for real, so far! :-) Fly Safe, Steve R. >> From what I remember reading in gyro circles, one group was looking at >> mounting the chute on top of the rotor hub, attached via some kind of [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > Rule #1: Don't hit anything big. > Larry Neal developed that, I believe, when he was working with AC (he > also centreline-thrusted their machines). Larry is now marketing his own > line of gyros, including one that's roadable as a motorcycle. He > promises a ballistic chute as a future option. Is there a web site I can look at the combination Gyro? I always thought a person could license an RAF as a motorcycle but the wheels aren't able to handle any serious "on ground" driving. SignatureboB Wing 70 U.S. Army Aviation (retired) Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK) Check http://www.thebutterfly11c.com URL should have been sorry for the screw up.. http://www.thebutterflyllc.com/ PATENT ISSUED FOR FLYING MOTORCYCLE THAT’S FLYING NOW! Press Release January 16, 2006 It’s official: Larry Neal, inventor of a new flying motorcycle concept, received a U.S. patent for it Dec. 27. “And I’m flying it now!” said Neal, president of The Butterfly LLC company that makes gyroplane kits. “Every flying vehicle we design and build will be based on this patent,” Neal said. “It means we’re free to develop practical flying vehicles without infringing on patent rights of other inventors.” A two-place flying car version is also being developed. Neal said he was granted U.S. Patent No. 6,978,969 on Dec. 27, and the next day he successfully test-flew the new folding rotor blades. He said the patent covers a “fly-drive vehicle” with a folding rotor shaft and a transmission to power either the drive propeller or wheels. “The problem with flying cars in the past was what to do with the wings once you were on the ground,” said Neal. “With a “fly-drive” gyroplane, just fold the rotor blades and drive on down the road.” “Using rotor blades for the wings of a flying car makes the fly-drive Super Sky Cycle a new kind of vehicle.” Neal said. “There’s nothing else like it, a gyroplane that can fly at freeway speeds, land in 20 feet, be driven home as a motorcycle, and fit in you garage.” The Super Sky Cycle is based on a Monarch single-place gyroplane kit, Neal said. First flown in the Super Sky Cycle configuration on Dec. 23, the new fly-drive vehicle can fly at 20 mph, cruise at 50 mph at half throttle, and tops out at 65 mph. He said a Rotax 582 engine is used with a three-blade 60-inch propeller. Neal said that he plans to demonstrate the Super Sky Cycle in both flying and driving modes at the Experimental Aircraft Association’s “Sun’n Fun” fly-in at Lakeland, Fla., April 4-10. For more information; write The Butterfly LLC, P.O. Box 927, Boyd, Texas 76023 phone 940-627-9887 email Larry Neal at: larry@thebutterflyllc.com > URL should have been sorry for the screw up.. > > http://www.thebutterflyllc.com/ Thanks a lot. That SkyCycle with 2 seats would probably find it's way into my garage someday. :) Do you still fly Cobra's??? I started in the AH-1G in 74, went to the Q model in 76 enroute Giebelstadt Germany, then the different S models in 4/7 Cav and Big Red One at Riley, until 1988. After that I flew the OH-58D in Stuttgart, 6 months in Desert Shield/Storm and finally retired in 95. I sure miss flying that guy...... SignatureboB Wing 70 U.S. Army Aviation (retired) Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK) I spent a couple hours talking to Larry Neil at the recent Sun n Fun here in Florida..He is a very interesting person and has some enviable back ground experiences. He has a Harley Davidson powered machine on the drawing boards as well.. My last AH1G flite would have been in 1972 when I was at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. I think I was flying an experimental infra red system.I worked on the Tow Cobra upgrade specs, and the Hellfire sight system. Very early bread board stuff.. From Aberdeen I went to Alaska and the 269th Aviation Battalion assist S3 so very little flying there. My last flight was in the CH54 June 1976 just before I retired. I was H23, H13, CH21, CH34, all the UH1s and the AH1G qualified.. Flew the OH6,OH58 and TH55 but was never qualified in them.. 1966 / 67 flew UH1C gun ships in Vietnam 1968 went to Hunter Army Airfield and was in the 9th AH1 qualification class returned to Vietnam in 69 as a maintenance officer with the 4th Divisions Direct Support Company. I liked the Snake but the 21 and 34 was fun and required some skill that the turbine power did not require..Especially at altitude. But I do miss flying rotary wing aircraft fixed wing never done much to get the adreneline flowing. Have good one and I hope you have a Sky Cycle in your garage soon..I have thought about selling my Valkyrie and Motor Home then renting a garage.. > I spent a couple hours talking to Larry Neil at the recent Sun n Fun here in > Florida..He is a very interesting person and has some enviable back ground [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the Tow Cobra upgrade specs, and the Hellfire sight system. Very early > bread board stuff.. Quite a great life. I was High School to Flight School back in 70. In 72 I was just transitioning into the Cobra. You remember in 79 or so they came out with the 3 paths a Warrant could take, Standards (Instructor), Safety, or Maintenance. I had the misfortune to be assigned to Ft Eustis as an instructor pilot and I let the Maintenance test flight school talk me into teaching Maintenance Test Pilots, which required me to go through AMOC. As a double tracked Warrant the Army assigned me to units needing Maintenance Officers since that was always a shortage MOS for AH-1's in Korea and Germany. So it wasn't until 1988 when I went to Rucker to the OH58D Transition/Instructor courses that I got out of maintenance. Then wouldn't you know it, this Kuwait thing came up. So I had a semi-miserable career and would much rather followed in your footsteps. SignatureboB Wing 70 U.S. Army Aviation (retired) Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK) The Sky Cycle's not a bad idea. The Air Scooter on the other hand has all the charm of the jetpack: if the engine quits, you are a brick. The basic rule is: if it has wings (fixed or rotatory) - good. No wings - bad. Never trust your life to an engine (I've had three engine failures myself). What this inventor has done is add folding blades to the main rotor so they are out of the way on the ground. That's about the only change from a traditional autogyro. The only thing that worries me is: since the propeller is practically invisible when it's turning, people might walk into it (car chasing dogs would have a very unpleasant surprise). But, except for the cost of having the propeller repaired, and the hassle of having to wash the machine, I suppose that's their problem. But I don't think I'd try driving it in downtown traffic, with all the bozos crossing the street while texting on their Blackberries. You would need a "rotorcraft/autogyro" license from the FAA to fly one. Not a hard thing to get if you already have an airplane and rotorcraft/helicopter rating like I do, but a bit of a challenge for anyone starting out fresh. And so far as getting insurance and a registration for operating it on the ground as a motor vehicle.... good luck. Still, I'd love to have one, and I'd try jiving the CHP here by saying: "Wadda ya mean, 'registration and proof of insurance?' This is an aircraft!" I already have no compunctions about using the roads when it's safe (just ask a couple of hitchhikers...). There's just one thing wrong with the version demonstrated: where does one's girlfriend/hitchhiker sit? What's the point in owning an aircraft that seats only one person? > Exactly what I was thinking. :-o > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >> rotor etc is all great but if the engine quits, the belt breaks or > >> anything else fails, you are history in this thing. You know, ballistic chute and rotor craft really just don't go together. I mean what's worse, being a lawn dart, or getting diced, sliced and julienned? At least in the former there's only one piece left to find and put in the casket! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.