Experimentals

[MLH]

That was the second accident in that aircraft, the first was when it still had the piston engine.

 

 

SEA98LA020

On December 5, 1997, about 1300 mountain standard time, N3275Q, a homebuilt Schramm Helicycle helicopter, operated by the owner/pilot, impacted power lines and was substantially damaged while maneuvering near Big Timber, Montana. The private pilot, who was the sole occupant, received minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan had been filed. The local business flight was conducted under 14 CFR 91.

 

In a written statement, the pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to demonstrate the helicopter to prospective investors who were present. The pilot stated that he was aware of the power lines and had intended on giving them a wide berth, however, during a high speed fly-by, he became distracted because of a low engine coolant temperature. The pilot indicated that he did not follow his intended flight path, and didn't see the power lines until the last moment. The pilot stated that he rolled the helicopter to a near 90 degree angle and the main rotor blades collided with and cut the wires. The helicopter subsequently crashed in snow on level terrain. A dead power line was wrapped around the rotor mast. Two other live wires were "sizzling" and "snapping" in the snow nearby.

[MileHi480B]

Not to pick a fight ... but some of you have a lot of specific information and opinions about certain makes and models ... and it begs the question: Do you have any firsthand experience? Or even direct second-hand experience (from a good friend or associate)?

 

I do ... both building, flying and associating with "experimental" folks ... and many of the assumptions and assertions are just plain inaccurate and at the very least ... exaggerated.

 

Most (not some) but most of the guys I know involved in experimental aviation are very knowledgeable, skilled, safe and diligent.

 

As I said ... not looking for a fight but wanting to add perspective.

Edited December 29, 2013 by MileHi480B

[MLH]

Thanks for the perspective MH.

 

 

If it were not for experimentals, there would be no certificated aircraft.

[aeroscout]

Thanks for the perspective MH.

 

 

If it were not for experimentals, there would be no certificated aircraft.

WTF are you trying to say, the Wright Flyer wasn't certificated ???

[Guest pokey]

WTF are you trying to say, the Wright Flyer wasn't certificated ???

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/47000/47700/47708/First_Type_Certificate.pdf

 

 

I guess I am missing something tooo? Wasn't the Wright Flyer flown in 1903?

[WolftalonID]

Well today I got to go over and visit the helicycle shop. Seeing these things in person was impressive. They didn't have any fully assembled there, but two were fairly well along the way. It is a very impressive tribute to see BJ's dream carry on with the company still producing these cool little machines. The guys there were more than friendly and tolerated my long winded interests with hospitality. If you get a chance to drop by and say hello to them too.

 

I can not afford one today, but I look forward to being able to fly one someday, and maybe even work on building my very own to enjoy for awhile.

 

I cant really weigh in on comparison too much, but to me they really do seem to compare very closely to an R-22, in basic over all, just on a smaller scale. Maybe someday, I could fly one and add to this as to how they fly vs a robinson.

 

If your looking toward building your own, what an excitement to look forward to.

[pilot#476398]

Do they let you fly one before you buy?

[500E]

Look for Stan Fosters posts.

This is just one

There are alot of pics to. &explination of Stans Eng out landing.

He seems a prity straight Guy & tells things as they are, + a meticilous builder, for a Chippy :lol:

 

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39059

[Rtpilot]

On 12/2/2013 at 3:48 AM, avbug said:

 

When you ask about turbines, you need to qualify your question. Certificated turbines, built for the purpose of powering an aircraft in flight, are one thing, when maintained properly. The helicycle doesn't use such an engine. It uses an APU turbine that was designed to run a generator, not provide propulsion or lift to an aircraft. Imagine your lawnmower being drafted into an entirely different role, and you're getting closer to the idea.

 

This isn't to say that the powerplants aren't reliable. Sunstrand and other APU motors have proven quite reliable, but I've seen a LOT of cases where they shut down during operation, too, for a host of reasons. From my perspective as a mechanic, pilot, and instructor, I'll say that for the most part, turbines are a lot more reliable than piston equipment, but when I say that I'm referring to purpose-built and designed turbines, not re-purposed turbine equipment. Your saving grace as a helicopter pilot is that unlike a fixed wing aircraft, you can autorotate.

 

Keep in mind that in a small helicopter like the helicycle, you've got a very short fuel supply and a very high fuel consumption, so practical uses are limited. It's still a very cool machine, but understand that it's far, far from an apples to apples comparison against a type certificated machine.

The Solar was commissioned by the us government in the  early 1960s for a single seat helicopter that never came to fruition. It is a repurposed helicopter engine to an APU. It is an extremely reliable, simple engine, perfect for the experimental world. Leaps and bounds better than a piston popper!