Experimentals

[adam32]

 

The apu thing... I want to put two solar's together thru a combined reduction drive unit and mount it in one of the extra 269 airframes I have... Twin turbine time baby!!

 

LOL that would be kinda cool! I still want the 269 with the C-18 that I found! $130k is too much for something that you can't make a penny with tho!

[aeroscout]

 

LOL that would be kinda cool! I still want the 269 with the C-18 that I found! $130k is too much for something that you can't make a penny with tho!

Aviation is not well known for it's money making opportunities. But you can find ways of hemmorhaging money more slowly.

[adam32]

Aviation is not well known for it's money making opportunities. But you can find ways of hemmorhaging money more slowly.

 

There's money to be made, just gotta know where and who to talk to

[cburg]

Friends that have Helicycle's love them. I wanted one but my wife made me buy a two-place, so I have a Rotorway.

 

 

If I had the funds I'd buy a helicycle (renting a 22 once a month or so kinda sucks). I don't have any experience with them, but I think the Eagle looks a little better than the Mosquito. Either one looks like a lot of fun to fly though!

 

If you can find them, there are some threads on here from a guy who builds helicycles, that you may find interesting?

[cburg]

 

There's money to be made, just gotta know where and who to talk to

Come kill some of our hogs...we are being overrun by them in the south. Plus you can fly year round.

[cburg]

I can’t dispute many of the complaints about Experimental aircraft. I’ve owned around 20 of them over the years and still own three now. It can be done right though…for example, look at how many RVs are safely and reliably flying.

 

But here’s my experience from 45 years of flying…the biggest aircraft headache I ever had was my one and only certified aircraft…Twin Comanche. Even it wasn’t too much of a headache, but was my worst and most expensive for sure.

[cburg]

Aviation is not well known for it's money making opportunities. But you can find ways of hemmorhaging money more slowly.

by Wesley Frey 3 hours ago

I just saw on Fox News that there is a Louisiana hunter that tracks ferrel pigs at night with a drone and thermal camera to help farmers protect their crops. Says he gets a $25 tip for each pig. He wants the FAA to allow him to fly it for money so he can expand services to land and crop management. May be even searches for rescue or any eye in the sky business. I think it is great until there is one in my flight path. There is already a drone training flight zone across the middle of Florida. Maybe an altitude limit would work, like 100 ft?

[MLH]

The Solar turbine used in the Helicycle was originally designed for the Gyrodyne XRON-I, a single man helicopter and later used as an APU. The use profile is essentially the same, constant RPM, varying load.

 

http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/xron_history.htm

 

 

[avbug]

The Solar turbine used in the Helicycle was originally designed for the Gyrodyne XRON-I, a single man helicopter and later used as an APU.

 

 

Actually, it wasn't.

 

The T-62 was developed from the T-41, which was accepted by the US Navy for powering fire pumps on ships. When the Navy began experimenting with the XRON, a request went out for a powerplant, and the T-41 as developed to become the T-62. The XRON project was dropped, but the T-62 found use as an APU.

[MLH]

Your information seems to be at odds with that provided in the link:

 

http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/xron_history.htm

[avbug]

You need to read your own material a little more closely. Your interpretation is incorrect. The T-62 was an expansion and repurposing of the T41 Mars, which the Navy acquired from Solar to power fire pumps.

[MLH]

So you finally admit that the reason the T-62 was designed was to power a single man helicopter!

 

And the rest of the story goes, "when the Navy abandoned development of Gyrodyne's XRON helicopter, Solar Aircraft Company adapted the Titan for service as an auxiliary power unit. Deliveries of this auxiliary power unit started in 1962."

 

Next time it might be easier for you to just cite the source of your information instead of allowing critical pieces of information to be lost in the translation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Turbines

[avbug]

So you finally admit that the reason the T-62 was designed was to power a single man helicopter!

 

 

I did not say that. You said that, and you said so incorrectly. That's not the case.

 

Once more, if you didn't get it the first time, the T-62 was a development of a Solar turbine used for fire pumps. That's firefighting equipment on ships. The US Navy had it developed separately. The XRON project was built around a piston engine, and the US Navy sought use of their separately-developed project, which came from the T41 (fire pumps, remember), to be incorporated AFTER the XRON project was developed around a PISTON engine.

 

 

Next time it might be easier for you to just cite the source of your information instead of allowing critical pieces of information to be lost in the translation.

 

 

Next time you'd be far better off choosing something other than "wikipedia" as your authoritative source.

 

Next time you might try doing a little more research, too.

[SBuzzkill]

It was developed from a fire pump engine and turned into an aircraft engine, which was later turned into an APU? What sort of things would one expect to fail with an engine like that when powering an aircraft?

[Hobie]

Reminds me of the kids tale: "The Little Engine that Could".

 

 

I think I can, I think I can......

[Jaybee]

It was developed from a fire pump engine and turned into an aircraft engine, which was later turned into an APU? What sort of things would one expect to fail with an engine like that when powering an aircraft?

 

Like any turbine its pretty bulletproof. As long as the intake and exhaust ducting is correctly designed so that the compressor doesn't stall out the turbine aerodynamically or melt it down there isn't much else to a turbine other than feeding it fuel.

 

As long as you feed it and give it a good home, no engine "cares" what job it is doing. It really is that simple.

 

EDIT - to further note, that piece of paper you call a certificate, yea well... it don't mean jack squat when you have an engine failure. I've had two engine failures so far in my short career as a pilot, both in well maintained certificated aircraft. You don't have to have a piece of paper to build something to Part 27 standards. If you need a piece of paper to tuck you in at night then I won't tease you (much).

 

PS - T62T-2A1 TIT is 788 for the record

[Jaybee]

 

bunch of nonsensical words

 

 

It should be obvious to anyone reading the are "College Degrees worth it for Helicopter Pilots" thread why your opinion is painfully inadequate - you should really divest yourself in some higher learning.

 

I think even the redneck at Autozone could take 1 + 1 and see how they add up to 2 but for some reason you don't believe you can add 1 + 1 unless they were genetically engineered from birth to be a one and a one.

 

I think NR hit the nail square on the head when he said you are "so full of self-importance that they become insufferable and unbearable."

 

Seriously, this could have led to a very interesting discussion but you have no interest in promulgating interesting discussion by viewing from another position - only in beating your chest and loudly stating how much "righter" your opinion is.

 

By your logic - every drag racer in the history of time should return their faithful Hemi engines back to the Chryslers' from which they came, because they sure as heck were not designed to be used for drag racing let alone used in Fords and Chebbies.

 

Just because a piece of equipment does not have Part 27 certification does not mean that it cannot be designed to the same standards. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me the fuel system must "provide the engine with at least 100 percent of the fuel required under each operating and maneuvering condition ". The fact that you do shows again why you need to divest yourself as previously discussed.

 

Lastly, if you are incapable of healthy discussion as you have previously shown that you are - then please for the love of God don't ever talk to me, ever.

[WolftalonID]

Hey now....... Have some coffee and relax...your gonna fly all worked up if your day starts out like this.

 

I personally like being a redneck with burley hands and more backwoods sense than shoe polish.

To this day when I read an AF/D I still giggle when the acronym DER of a runway is used.

 

Do you ever notice how many runways have der on em? Lol ( for the overly educated, der is translated into proper english as deer)

 

My old boss I worked construction for had a saying....

" some of us will grow up to be President, and the rest of us will be carpenters....to each their own,..."

Yes he also followed that with some personal rendition of choice words of how he felt for the guy....but the saying was pretty cool.

 

Point is......let people speak, but never try to curb stomp em on a forum...it looks snobish.

Edited December 12, 2013 by WolftalonID

[apiaguy]

haha..

 

You should really know the meaning of words before using them...

"divest"

It really lowers the intelligence of your post

[WolftalonID]

Well for some we have divested from higher learning!

[aeroscout]

haha..

 

You should really know the meaning of words before using them...

"divest"

It really lowers the intelligence of your post

Ode to a magnetic compass...East is least and West is divest.

[Nearly Retired]

JAYBEE wrote:

PS - T62T-2A1 TIT is 788 for the record

 

 

I guess that's in response to my post that mentioned a maximum temperature of 588C for the T62-2A.

 

I guess it gets down to terminology.

 

That figure came from a chart in which I found here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/al0993/le7.htm

 

That chart specifies a maximum EGT of 1090 degrees F. for both the -2A and the -16A. When I plug 1090F into my handy-dandy F-to-C converter it gives me 587.7778C.

 

Jaybee notes that the TIT limit for the -2A1 engine is 788C which works out to be 1450F.

 

Then I find this website:

http://www.avonaero.com/products.htm

 

And sure enough, the specs for the T62-2A1 do show a max turbine inlet temperature (TIT) of 1450F/788C. But they also note a max EGT of 1040F/560C, which doesn't match up to anything else. But we can agree that the turbine inlet temperature would logically be higher than the turbine outlet temperature, no?

 

Temperatures in turbine engines are measured in different places, depending on the manufacturer. In the RR-250 engine, it is called TOT...turbine outlet temperature...which is analogous to EGT. And like I said, a RR-250 will run all day long at 810C TOT. I shudder to think what the turbine inlet temperature would be on that little sewing machine!

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

 

[avbug]

EDIT - to further note, that piece of paper you call a certificate, yea well... it don't mean jack squat when you have an engine failure. I've had two engine failures so far in my short career as a pilot, both in well maintained certificated aircraft. You don't have to have a piece of paper to build something to Part 27 standards. If you need a piece of paper to tuck you in at night then I won't tease you (much).

 

 

I've had over 50 engine failures to date. Your'e just getting started. How is this relevant to the price of tea in China?

 

Like any turbine its pretty bulletproof. As long as the intake and exhaust ducting is correctly designed so that the compressor doesn't stall out the turbine aerodynamically or melt it down there isn't much else to a turbine other than feeding it fuel.

 

 

Not remotely close to bullet proof. Not remotely close. There are good reasons why the Solar APU powerplants come with multiple auto shutdown functions.

 

Posted Yesterday, 15:31

avbug, on 04 Dec 2013 - 22:02, said:

 

bunch of nonsensical words

 

 

It should be obvious to anyone reading the are "College Degrees worth it for Helicopter Pilots" thread why your opinion is painfully inadequate - you should really divest yourself in some higher learning.

 

 

 

You're whining about my level of education, and yet resort to inventing a quote? You quoted me as saying something I did not say, which is plagiarism. Inaccurate quotes, failure to attribute, attributing the wrong material, all plagiarism. Worse than a mere lie, this is what you've resorted to doing to attempt to make a point? Pathetic.

 

Divest myself in higher learning you say? Did you think before you attempted to say that? Sometimes it may behoove you to keep your trap shut and appear the fool, rather than open it and remove all doubt.

Edited December 13, 2013 by avbug

[Nearly Retired]

Wait...what?

 

Avbug: "I've had over 50 engine failures to date."

 

 

Dude, God is trying to tell you something.

 

And you're not listening very well.

 

Please, switch careers. Now!

 

Before it's too late for you.

 

It might be already.

 

[Counterrotate]

Edited December 13, 2013 by Counterrotate