Best 2 place kit?

[lonewolf172]

Hi all. Im new here and also new to helicopters. In fact I dont even have a license to operate one yet. I have been looking at several 2 place helicopter kits, the Safari, Helicycle and the Chief by Pawnee Avaition. I want to use it for aerial photography and volenteer my services for any search and rescue. Can anyone with the knowledge of these 3 kits give me some advise. Thanks

[slick1537]

Well you will definatly need to invest money into training to get your private pilots licence, a helicopter is not something you can pick up with no instruction like driving or operating a motorcycle. In fact I would never fly something I put together myself. I would look for a used R22 or something.

[Sparker]

In fact I would never fly something I put together myself.

 

I wouldn't even go near something you built!!!!

 

Ha.. couldn't resist, Slick....

[apiaguy]

Based on the 3 kits you suggested here are my thoughts...

 

#1 Safari.... aviation engine, based on certified helicopter, many built and flown with reliable history.

 

#2 Helicycle.... turbine powered, numbers are getting better but even the designer was killed in it. Only one place!! The biggest drawback! How do you learn to fly it??? Jump in and go... I always find you need at least 2 seats to share with a friend... gets kinda boring by yourself after a while... and who is gonna help you take the photos? That said.. the company is good with helping you finish the aircraft and balancing it very nicely which for an amateur is a real benefit. Max pilot weight is 220.... kinda a downer for alot of guys as we age. The thing is a "pilots helicopter" which is to say it is a one seat R22 that is very maneuverable. As a pilot MY most important criteria in helicopter flight is that I am alive after each flight.

 

#3 Chief... honestly had never heard of it until you wrote it... that is a bad sign in my book.... sure it "looks" ok. Uses a auto v8 engine and needs more power than the others.... another bad for a kit helicopter. Can't say much for this one.

 

#4 Can't believe you didn't mention the rotorway?? If I were to built a kit helicopter it would be a rotorway with the KISS conversion.

[lonewolf172]

Based on the 3 kits you suggested here are my thoughts...

 

#1 Safari.... aviation engine, based on certified helicopter, many built and flown with reliable history.

 

#2 Helicycle.... turbine powered, numbers are getting better but even the designer was killed in it. Only one place!! The biggest drawback! How do you learn to fly it??? Jump in and go... I always find you need at least 2 seats to share with a friend... gets kinda boring by yourself after a while... and who is gonna help you take the photos? That said.. the company is good with helping you finish the aircraft and balancing it very nicely which for an amateur is a real benefit. Max pilot weight is 220.... kinda a downer for alot of guys as we age. The thing is a "pilots helicopter" which is to say it is a one seat R22 that is very maneuverable. As a pilot MY most important criteria in helicopter flight is that I am alive after each flight.

 

#3 Chief... honestly had never heard of it until you wrote it... that is a bad sign in my book.... sure it "looks" ok. Uses a auto v8 engine and needs more power than the others.... another bad for a kit helicopter. Can't say much for this one.

 

#4 Can't believe you didn't mention the rotorway?? If I were to built a kit helicopter it would be a rotorway with the KISS conversion.

[lonewolf172]

Actually I forgot about the Rotorway until after I posted the ad. The only thing about the Rotoway is I haven't been able to find the cost and if they had a quick build kit. What is the KISS conversion. And for anyone who's concern I had planned on getting the full helicopter license.

[Optigirl]

#1 Safari.... aviation engine, based on certified helicopter, many built and flown with reliable history.

 

#4 Can't believe you didn't mention the Rotorway?? If I were to built a kit helicopter it would be a Rotorway with the KISS conversion.

 

Yes I cant believe you didn't add Rotorway to the list.

 

But lets be realistic here for a second. You really need to learn to fly before you start thinking about building helicopters.

The skills that you acquire darning training will lay the foundation for everything you want to do in said helicopter.

[southernweyr]

RotorWay has great customer support, flight training, and by far the most flying in the world. They sell over 70/year and have over 1000 flying. If it were me I would go for the RotorWay or the Helicycle. I have a substantial ammount of experience flying experimentals though. I would definately not recommend a low time pilot hopping in a single seat helicopter and expect to be safe. I heard about a low time R22 pilot who tried to fly a Rotorway with out any training and he ended rolling it over after attempting to pick it up into a hover. That gets real expensive real fast when you have to start rebuilding your helicopter.

 

Another thing is, I have seen people buy and build their helicopter then try to get training. Some of them decide it is going to be too difficult to learn after trying the first flight. These are usually older gentlemen but it still applies. It would be a good idea to go out and get a demo flight or two where they actually let you try to learn to hover. This way you won't be so surprised when you are done building your own helicopter.

[1badz32]

In fact I would never fly something I put together myself.

*shrugs*

Why, are production heli's biult by super humans? I'd feel safer in a machine that i put togeather. I dont have a degree in anything, but biulding 750hp super cars makes a person alittle more "keen" to area's that may be problematic.

Being part of the assembly process tends to help me realize when and why parts tend to fail.

Just my $0.02

[lonewolf172]

RotorWay has great customer support, flight training, and by far the most flying in the world. They sell over 70/year and have over 1000 flying. If it were me I would go for the RotorWay or the Helicycle. I have a substantial ammount of experience flying experimentals though. I would definately not recommend a low time pilot hopping in a single seat helicopter and expect to be safe. I heard about a low time R22 pilot who tried to fly a Rotorway with out any training and he ended rolling it over after attempting to pick it up into a hover. That gets real expensive real fast when you have to start rebuilding your helicopter.

 

Another thing is, I have seen people buy and build their helicopter then try to get training. Some of them decide it is going to be too difficult to learn after trying the first flight. These are usually older gentlemen but it still applies. It would be a good idea to go out and get a demo flight or two where they actually let you try to learn to hover. This way you won't be so surprised when you are done building your own helicopter.

 

Your last comment about a demo flight is a good idea. I live in San Diego. Do you know schools that would allow that?

[Sparker]

Your last comment about a demo flight is a good idea. I live in San Diego. Do you know schools that would allow that?

 

All of them.... you pay for it... about $120...

[slick1537]

I am not saying experimentals are bad aircraft or anything, but its not a car, it flies, and that fact that helicopters fly in the first place is a pretty amazing thing. A helicopter in flight is just one problem, corrected by another, which creates a new problem, until finally it is down to a level manageable by a pilot, thats my take anyway.

[apiaguy]

The KISS conversion is at: www.kissaviation.com

 

It is a turbine engine conversion and drive train for the rotorway refered to as the "Jet Exec".

 

The rotorway is probabally going to be the most expensive of the 4 especially as it looks like they're moving to the A600 tallon.

 

If you went with a jet exec.... I would buy a used ship for cheap (easily done as they don't hold their value well) and then convert it.

[IFLY]

The Rotorway Talon is about $90,000 plus options. It has a drive shaft for the tail rotor compared to the earlier versions with drive belts and the parts have a longer life too. The performance is about the same as a R-22.

[1badz32]

I am not saying experimentals are bad aircraft or anything, but its not a car, it flies, and that fact that helicopters fly in the first place is a pretty amazing thing. A helicopter in flight is just one problem, corrected by another, which creates a new problem, until finally it is down to a level manageable by a pilot, thats my take anyway.

Maybe so, but some people learn best (myself included) when they have actual hands on expieriance. When i know how each control input creates its effect it is sometimes easier to understand why that effect happend.

I see quite afew opinions as to what kits are good and what kits are bad.... but seldom are there reasons given... just opinions.

[lonewolf172]

Well in talking with a Murray at Safari I found out that if I were to build the helicopter myself then I would be able to do my own maintenance and annual inspections so I think I'd rather go that way. I have kind of narrowed it down to either a Safari or the Talon when and if I'm able to purchase one. I want to thank ALL of you for you imput. I'm just wanting now to hear back from Rotorway about some questions I had. I was surprised to noticed that the Talon did have a small rotor at 25' were as the Safari was at 30'. Considering what I would use the copter for I'm leaning more towards the Talon. Thanks again to all of you.

[deanathpc]

The KISS conversion is at: www.kissaviation.com

 

It is a turbine engine conversion and drive train for the rotorway refered to as the "Jet Exec".

 

The rotorway is probabally going to be the most expensive of the 4 especially as it looks like they're moving to the A600 tallon.

 

If you went with a jet exec.... I would buy a used ship for cheap (easily done as they don't hold their value well) and then convert it.

 

It looks like with this conversion there is less pilot and passenger load available. I'm not a light weight so this wouldn't be a great option for me. esp. when I do get the license the wife won't let me go without her!! lol

[apiaguy]

There is NOT less pilot and passenger load available.... the empty weight is 80 lbs. lighter...

 

The engine now burns twice as much fuel as before and they have installed a rather large 40 gal. tank instead of the 17 gal. stock tank...Plus jet fuel weighs 6.7 lbs./gal. instead of avgas at 6 lbs/gal.

 

The engine has a full time rating of 150 hp which is substantially more power than the 162 engine it replaces. Look at the rate of climb! 2000fpm vs stock 1000fpm.

 

Plus it is experimental... if you want full fuel and your fat butts... go for it.... it will haul it. Or just leave some fuel out and refuel more often.

[500E]

There are numerous threads to look at regarding Rotorway + AAIB & NTSB reports

Two others for you to think about.

Some nice touches you can access the flight manual, parts of the build manual and other paper work.

The frame appears to be a gas filled, which I presume warns of damage\fatigue cracks.

www.ch-7helicopter.com

All most a certified machine, the only home build I would contemplate flying

www.vertical-aviation.com/hummingbird

[deanathpc]

There is NOT less pilot and passenger load available.... the empty weight is 80 lbs. lighter...

 

The engine now burns twice as much fuel as before and they have installed a rather large 40 gal. tank instead of the 17 gal. stock tank...Plus jet fuel weighs 6.7 lbs./gal. instead of avgas at 6 lbs/gal.

 

The engine has a full time rating of 150 hp which is substantially more power than the 162 engine it replaces. Look at the rate of climb! 2000fpm vs stock 1000fpm.

 

Plus it is experimental... if you want full fuel and your fat butts... go for it.... it will haul it. Or just leave some fuel out and refuel more often.

 

Wow maybe I'm taking it the wrong way but the tone I get from your post wasn't good...

 

Actually per the two spec sheets it's 85 lbs. lighter. and yes there is less pilot and passenger load available per their respective specs. I decided to print 'em both out last night and double check before I posted this reply. This was something I expected from over at JH not here....

 

Talon:

 

Gross Weight: 1500 lbs.

Empty Weight: 965 lbs.

Equipped Useful Load: 535 lbs.

Pilot and Passenger Load: 450 lbs.

 

Kiss aviation:

 

Gross Weight: 1500 lbs. (yeah same)

Empty Weight: 880 lbs. (85 lbs. less)

Useful Load: 675 lbs. (140 lbs. more)

Pilot and Passenger: 360 lbs. (90 lbs. less)

 

New Yes, a complete idiot, No. I did research it. Unless their printed specs are wrong. Granted Useful load increased but 140 lbs. but they still state that Pilot and Passenger is only 360 lbs. I do understand there are going to be differences in weight due to different engines and also larger fuel tanks. But I'm going by their spec. sheets is all.

 

Now I know i'm not small but at around 220 lbs. (didn't think it was a "fat butt") and 6' 4" I tend to look at those specs a little harder.

 

Am I wrong? Anyone?

[apiaguy]

haha... ok, fat butt was a joke based on your first comment about you and your wife having to fly...

 

You need to look at USEFULL LOAD.... not what they print as left over for passenger load.....

That is why I listed the difference in fuel tank sizes and fuel weights...

The helicopter will carry more weight, if you choose to fill the tanks and abide by the gross weight rotorway lists... then yes, you have less passenger load. Kinda reminds me of the new crop of turboprop aircraft... if you fill the tanks on a TBM800 6 seat turboprop (or piper meridian) there is only like 300 lbs available for passengers!!??!!?? Gee, what are all those seats for....

 

Please don't be so sentimental... my comments are just comments... not meant to make you sad or hurt.

[deanathpc]

haha... ok, fat butt was a joke based on your first comment about you and your wife having to fly...

 

You need to look at USEFULL LOAD.... not what they print as left over for passenger load.....

That is why I listed the difference in fuel tank sizes and fuel weights...

The helicopter will carry more weight, if you choose to fill the tanks and abide by the gross weight rotorway lists... then yes, you have less passenger load. Kinda reminds me of the new crop of turboprop aircraft... if you fill the tanks on a TBM800 6 seat turboprop (or piper meridian) there is only like 300 lbs available for passengers!!??!!?? Gee, what are all those seats for....

 

Please don't be so sentimental... my comments are just comments... not meant to make you sad or hurt.

 

lol

 

Granted I'm new to this all here so... I do understand that for those of us that are heavier than say an R22 likes you can put in less fuel to compensate.

 

So then the Pilot and passenger load is going to be based on a FULL fuel tank? Would that be a correct statement? Hence the Useful load is going to be a combination of both fuel and pilot / passenger weight ( and probably cargo to)?

 

o.k. Wait a min. here... doing some math.... Bear with me and correct my mistakes...

 

Gross weight = 1500 lbs.

Empty weight = 965 lbs.

Useful load then = 535 lbs.

 

O.K. Got that so far... now....

 

Fuel (17 gals.) = 102 lbs (AvGas at 6 lbs./gal. right?)

 

Now down to : 433 lbs. Which then this is the amount of cargo / passengers available correct?

 

I understand weight of oil etc. needs to be factored in here also. Have I figured this out correctly? Or am I still missing something?

 

The math with the turbine engine just doesn't pan out..

 

Gross: 1500 lbs.

Empty: 880 lbs.

Useful: 675 lbs. (per their website specs - I get 620 lbs.)

 

Now I'm really confused....

[apiaguy]

lol

 

Granted I'm new to this all here so... I do understand that for those of us that are heavier than say an R22 likes you can put in less fuel to compensate.

 

So then the Pilot and passenger load is going to be based on a FULL fuel tank? Would that be a correct statement? Hence the Useful load is going to be a combination of both fuel and pilot / passenger weight ( and probably cargo to)?

 

o.k. Wait a min. here... doing some math.... Bear with me and correct my mistakes...

 

Gross weight = 1500 lbs.

Empty weight = 965 lbs.

Useful load then = 535 lbs.

 

O.K. Got that so far... now....

 

Fuel (17 gals.) = 102 lbs (AvGas at 6 lbs./gal. right?)

 

Now down to : 433 lbs. Which then this is the amount of cargo / passengers available correct?

 

I understand weight of oil etc. needs to be factored in here also. Have I figured this out correctly? Or am I still missing something?

 

The math with the turbine engine just doesn't pan out..

 

Gross: 1500 lbs.

Empty: 880 lbs.

Useful: 675 lbs. (per their website specs - I get 620 lbs.)

 

Now I'm really confused....

 

Yes, you had it..... Their calculation of passenger load was based on FULL FUEL in each example..

 

You're right... their math doesn't add up for their advertisement... I believe they figure on flying the helicopter over gross established by rotorway... (just a guess)

 

It comes down to engine weight (turbine=less) plus engine output (turbine slightly more) and the cool factor (turbine ++)

[deanathpc]

Yes, you had it..... Their calculation of passenger load was based on FULL FUEL in each example..

 

You're right... their math doesn't add up for their advertisement... I believe they figure on flying the helicopter over gross established by rotorway... (just a guess)

 

It comes down to engine weight (turbine=less) plus engine output (turbine slightly more) and the cool factor (turbine ++)

 

whew!! Thought I was losing my mind again... THanks for the clarification...

[Darkhorse]

#3 Chief... honestly had never heard of it until you wrote it... that is a bad sign in my book.... sure it "looks" ok. Uses a auto v8 engine and needs more power than the others.... another bad for a kit helicopter. Can't say much for this one.

 

Bringing back an old thread because oddly I am somewhat intrigued by this kit. I dont like small helo's with low power and low blade inertia. What are some opinions from people who have looked into this and the specs? It has a trusty chevy V-8 but I would rather have an aviation engine. I'm not crazy about drive belts either but this one looks beefy compared to others, and if it breaks the M/R is still attached to the T/R for hopefully a safe auto rotation.

It has TWICE the HP and net weight of a rotorway exec. The rotorways have been around alot longer but I dont see alot of them for sale with any amount of hours on them. Where I live with the heat and altitude you wouldnt be able to take off by yourself in a rotorway with a tank of fuel. They do look sleek IMO but that doesnt get you off the ground on a hot summer day.