experimental helos

[mattcob]

just wanted to know what people on this site think about home built helicopters like the safari or rotor way, is there anyone on here owns any of them, what sort of reputation do they have amongst the world of helicopter pilots. you dont seem to see al lot of discussion on this site with reference to them yet there are a lot of them out there!!!

 

just curious

 

blue skies

 

mattcob

[Wannabe1]

Top of the Afternoon mattcob...

 

I too am interested in experimental helicopters. I have dismissed the Rotorway due to all the maintenance to keep the thing flying. There is a strong rumor you work on the thing for 2 hours for every 1 hour in the air. The new one may be better? I was up in a Safari with Mark Richards (from CHR) and really liked it. Great view, Lycoming, vibrates a bit more than the R22, solid design, a bit more inertia than the R22, keep it at home and it even looks like a helicopter (about $110,000). Another good choice to me is the Helicycle, a single place turbine (about $45000). Have a bit more dough, look at the Hummingbird out of FL. A nice four place for about $180000. Don't want to be a builder, go look at the two place Brantly (if you can look at the Brantly) for about $150,000 and have someone else do the work on the thing.

[deanathpc]

just wanted to know what people on this site think about home built helicopters like the safari or rotor way, is there anyone on here owns any of them, what sort of reputation do they have amongst the world of helicopter pilots. you dont seem to see al lot of discussion on this site with reference to them yet there are a lot of them out there!!!

 

just curious

 

blue skies

 

mattcob

 

I can step in here say to use the search feature here. You will find a ton of topics / conversations about what you seek. There are many options out there depending how deep your pockets are. Many here wont fly in them if they aren't certified so you'll get mixed reviews / opinions.

 

Happy searching.. I know I have... lol

[southernweyr]

It's more like .3 hours for every hour in the air. The Schweizer is about .5 hours for 1 hour in the air. Most people agree that the Rotorway is less maintenance than the Schweizer. If I was going to get a helicopter to fly around myself I would consider the helicycle or the Rotorway. The bad thing about the helicycle is that you can't get any flight training on it.

 

Once you get the Rotorway tuned and flying properly it's not horrible on the maintenance. There is definately a learning curve though. The more you do something the easier it gets.

 

As far as crash worthyness goes, I believe the Rotorway is more crash worthy than a R22. The schweizer is probably a little more crash worthy than a Rotorway.

[Fiasco]

It's more like .3 hours for every hour in the air. The Schweizer is about .5 hours for 1 hour in the air. Most people agree that the Rotorway is less maintenance than the Schweizer. If I was going to get a helicopter to fly around myself I would consider the helicycle or the Rotorway. The bad thing about the helicycle is that you can't get any flight training on it.

 

Once you get the Rotorway tuned and flying properly it's not horrible on the maintenance. There is definately a learning curve though. The more you do something the easier it gets.

 

As far as crash worthyness goes, I believe the Rotorway is more crash worthy than a R22. The schweizer is probably a little more crash worthy than a Rotorway.

 

Those helicycles are too cool.

[ADRidge]

*cough*deathtrap*cough*

 

Nah, not really. I think I speak for quite a few people when I say that something homebuilt just doesn't inspire confidence. I suppose if I got some time in one and got more familiar with the system I might feel better about them.

[Goldy]

*cough*deathtrap*cough*

 

Nah, not really. I think I speak for quite a few people when I say that something homebuilt just doesn't inspire confidence. I suppose if I got some time in one and got more familiar with the system I might feel better about them.

 

Bottom line, it may be a great ship, but I am not a great ship builder...so forget it for me. Also if you're a big guy forget it, the Rotorway is about half the size of an R22..I have 14 year old kids that wouldnt fit in the thing.

 

Also, when you start flying, you start learning. And one of the things you learn is how a small seemingless insignificant part can cause a catastrohic failure. A simple wrong gasket, one screw missing, wrong torque sequence...anything can start a chain of events that rips a machine apart.

 

By the way, both recent Rotorway accidents were aircraft related, one lost a door the other lost a rotor.

 

Over the years there are 128 non fatal Rotorway accidents in the NTSB database, and 12 fatal. Now one could only guess how many hours flown compared to say, an R22. I see a lot of them for sale, and few ships have over 100 hours on them...many are for sale with 30 or 40 hours. I flew an R22 last year that had 10,000 hours on it.

 

Bottom line, its your decision,.....I've already made mine. I think every new pilot has thought of building his own ship at one time, and many of us have moved on...theres already too many things that can go wrong at 500AGL.

 

Goldy

 

Here's the last two fatals:

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

7/21/2004

12/20/2005

Cameron Park, CA

Finke Rotorway Exec 162F

N103RW

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

 

Probable Cause

Factual ,

Probable Cause

5/13/2000

5/17/2001

ITHACA, MI

Rotorway EXEC 162F

N962WM

Fatal(1)

Part 91: General Aviation

[BOATFIXERGUY]

I agree with Goldy...

 

For one, homebuilt helos are not the same as FW. Many fixed wing homebuilts rival production aircraft, but not homebuilt helicopters. You may want to go and look at these homebuilts in person...they are TINY! I want a little more steel around me.

 

For the cost of a homebuilt helo, you can get a mid time R22, 300, 280 etc. All known performers with good safety records for hours flown. If you want to build your own aircraft, do it in a FW.

[mattcob]

thanks guys for the mixed responses,

 

sort of what i expected, but a lot of the bad stats seem to come from the rotorway, and with a lot more of them in the sky than any other experimental helo, im sure the stats get higher to, but what about anything on the safari, what is its reputation, its been around now for a very long time, has the same engine as a r22, tail rotor drive shaft, no belts at all on it, im sure it wouldnt be around for 27 years if it was dangerous!!

 

all the best

 

mattcob

[southernweyr]

Also if you're a big guy forget it, the Rotorway is about half the size of an R22..I have 14 year old kids that wouldnt fit in the thing.

 

The Rotorway flys many 230 lb guys around. I know a 245 lb guy who flys with a 195 lb guy. Maybe your 14 year old kids need to go on a diet. I flew with a friend of mine who is over 6' 4" and about 210 lbs and he fit just fine.

 

Well, the engine is more reliable on the R22 but the Rotorway has never had any fatalities due to blades delaminating in flight. Rotorway has higher inertia rotorblades a 4130 chromolly steel frame, and in my opinion is more crashworthy than a R22. It is experimental though and that demands a certain amount of caution. It requies you to learn pretty much everything about the helicopter so it is not for some one who wants to "just fly."

[jtravis1]

<<<<<<

Edited January 25, 2009 by jtravis1

[jtravis1]

<<<<<<

Edited January 25, 2009 by jtravis1

[flylow]

This is not accurate. The rotorway is extremely underpowered. At anything but sea-level, it is at best a single place ship unless you have a very large area to operate out of. It is not uncommon to be wide open throttle in the ship with the engine giving all it can give.

 

I don't disagree that the RW it is underpowered, but when I had one I rarely flew solo, and the passenger was frequently an adult. I did run out of power a couple of times with heavier passengers though. Really have to learn to pay attention to the W/B.

 

The interior is also much more cramped then a 22. As a matter of fact, flying with two pilots in can often lead to a dangerous situation where the passenger collective wont let the pilot move the cyclic to the right because his knee is suck on the passenger collective. (remember in the rotorway you fly from the right). Most people will not install the passenger collective for this reason.

 

You're right about the passenger collective getting in the way sometimes. I never kept mine in. But the pilot is on the left in the RW. I know you know that, but for anyone else reading I just wanted to clarify.

[jtravis1]

<<<<<<

Edited January 25, 2009 by jtravis1

[apiaguy]

My question to those interested in experimental helicopters is why not buy an older Hughes 269A or B for pretty much the same cost? OK, it isn't NEW... but it will outperform those other helicopters... is a real two seater and has a very good reputation for reliability and easy to train in. Also lots of parts available.

[500E]

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/te...?a=6968&z=6

[southernweyr]

jtravis1 I said the R22 engine is more reliable. Please read my post correctly. Thanks for the ntsb number for that accident relating to the in flight delamination, I was not aware of that one. Of course that was a model that is no longer in production and hasn't been for quite some time. I think my statement stand that no Rotorway 162f has had any blade delamination fatalities. Of course I failed to specify the 162f in my post but that is what I was talking about. My mistake.

 

I find it laughable that you are calling me a liar by saying it is inaccurate that I know two poeple who fly in the rotorway together at 245 lbs and 195 lbs. They are sitting here next to me right now. Also, it is very accurate that my friend that I flew with is over 6' 4" and about 210 lbs. So, I would like you to please refrain from speaking about things that you know nothing about.

 

I also agree that they are real helicopters that must be flown with great caution. I stated that in my previous post. I don't think that we disagree to strongly on any points. Rotorway is underpowered but it still will fly just fine in the normal operating range. Of course a max performance take off is not an option with two heavy people on board.

 

They are a little tight but the two people that I mentioned are able to fly in it fine and this illustrates my point that you just have to learn how to fit in them. The control limitations can be worked around with out too much difficulty especially when the only reason you need that much right cyclic is for a slope landing with the upslope to the right of the helicopter. Any one with a little experience in the Rotorway should know that it is better to land with the upslope on the left side of the helicopter due to weight and balance, and the fact that the right skid hangs low because of translating tendency.

[jtravis1]

<<<<<<

Edited January 25, 2009 by jtravis1

[southernweyr]

I agree that it takes finess and skill to do a max performance take off with limited power. Most people can't do confined area take offs with a fully loaded Rotorway. There is no argument there.

 

If you calculate your weight and balance and carry the appropriate balast there is not an aft cyclic issue. I have flown with tail winds of over 17 knots in a Rotorway and had full control with enough aft cyclic to do what I wanted.

 

When setting up a Rotorway the builder is instructed to check the amount of pitch in the blades. You should have about 1.5 to 2 degrees negative and about 9 degrees positive pitch. If you do the math it seems to be real close or even more to 9 degrees of pitch movement.

 

The blades didn't have any rivets before and now they are riveted. Also, what blades did the Australians have? Were they doing cattle mustering or something to that effect? Australian helicopter pilots use and abuse the helicopters whether it is a R22 or Rotorway doesn't matter. I am sure you know of issues about the R22 that they have had that most others don't, simply because of the way they use the helicotpers down under.

[Goldy]

Yes the 22 is limited to about 400lbs up front. This is a forward CG limit. Remember at that limit the 22 had to be controllable in a 17kt tailwind....meaning you till have plenty of cyclic left over even in the 17kt tailwind.

 

JT- Just so you understand, the 17kt demonstration was simply that...a demonstration. On that particular day that the FAA showed up to witness the R22 for its type certificate, the winds were blowing at 17 knots. It is by no means a limit, or some magic calculated number...its just what the actual conditions were on that day.

 

Yes, 400 pounds in the R22 cockpit is correct, and with that, I have negotiated 25 knot tail winds....with plenty of aft cyclic left.

 

And thanks for the disparaging comments, southern weyr. My son happens to be 6-3 and weighs in at a whopping 150 pounds...not so sure a diet is necessary. I still wouldnt try to fit him or me into the thing, I'm glad your friends fit.

 

Like I've said before. There is no right or wrong, these are our opinions...take them for what its worth.

[southernweyr]

Goldy I was not trying to be disparaging towards you personnally. I am 6' 2" and I fit just fine. If you replace the thick cushion under the seat you can fit taller people. One of the former CEOs and high time rotorway pilots was 6' 4" and he flew daily. All I am saying is that if you want to fit in it you can. Obviously you don't want to fit in it and that is just fine.

[jtravis1]

I agree that it takes finess and skill to do a max performance take off with limited power. Most people can't do confined area take offs with a fully loaded Rotorway. There is no argument there.

 

 

We must just live in different universes... My point is NOT, that it takes more skill in a rotorway, there is simply not enough power. Most that I know hover SOLO around 27"map. (around 2000' DA) Does not leave a lot of room to spare when you put in a passenger or a higher DA.

 

If you calculate your weight and balance and carry the appropriate balast there is not an aft cyclic issue. I have flown with tail winds of over 17 knots in a Rotorway and had full control with enough aft cyclic to do what I wanted.

 

When setting up a Rotorway the builder is instructed to check the amount of pitch in the blades. You should have about 1.5 to 2 degrees negative and about 9 degrees positive pitch. If you do the math it seems to be real close or even more to 9 degrees of pitch movement.

 

You are showing your lack of understanding. You are describing the collective travel, not cyclic. Cyclic travel is HALF collective travel. Add it up, -1.5 to 9 = +/- 10 deg collective. Half of that is 5 deg each way. Remember when doing the rigging you put the digital protractor on the strap and verify CYCLIC travel in each direction. It is 5 deg. (Yes I built a rotorway too.....)

 

Again we must live in a different universe, every other builder I know of is well aware of the cyclic limitations of the Rotorway, especially the lack of aft cyclic.

 

The blades didn't have any rivets before and now they are riveted. Also, what blades did the Australians have? Were they doing cattle mustering or something to that effect? Australian helicopter pilots use and abuse the helicopters whether it is a R22 or Rotorway doesn't matter. I am sure you know of issues about the R22 that they have had that most others don't, simply because of the way they use the helicotpers down under.

 

I think you are thinking of the first blades where BJ actually used carpet tape to hold the blades together. That did not last long and they have been riveted for a very very long time.... The blades that delaminated in the fatal accident I listed were rivited too. FYI

 

Also read what I wrote about the Australian accident. I was speaking of a teeter bearing failure, not a blade failure.

[jtravis1]

JT- Just so you understand, the 17kt demonstration was simply that...a demonstration. On that particular day that the FAA showed up to witness the R22 for its type certificate, the winds were blowing at 17 knots. It is by no means a limit, or some magic calculated number...its just what the actual conditions were on that day.

 

Yes, 400 pounds in the R22 cockpit is correct, and with that, I have negotiated 25 knot tail winds....with plenty of aft cyclic left.

.

 

 

I am aware of that. I was pointing out the difference in a certified design vs an experimental. The certified CG envelope demonstratd that there was controllability at it's cg limits with a 17 kt wind from any direction. I know it will do more. I was just making the point that the 22 is limited by cg envelope and if the Rotorway had any "real" cg envelope with decent safety margins, you could never put that much weight up front.

 

 

I have owned 2 r22's and have given a good amount of instruction in them. When you instruct you are almost always at gross and at the forward cg limit. I weigh 195 and just about everyone seems to go 200lbs.

[NorCalHeliKid]

My question to those interested in experimental helicopters is why not buy an older Hughes 269A or B for pretty much the same cost? OK, it isn't NEW... but it will outperform those other helicopters... is a real two seater and has a very good reputation for reliability and easy to train in. Also lots of parts available.

 

Agreed, by the time you pay for the one seater and then pay someone to build it for you...you might as well buy a production helicopter like an older 269/ 300? Look at those things...I wouldnt want to fly that little helicopter past a 2 foot hover.

[southernweyr]

jtravis1 I am not trying to make any enemies so I hope that this discussion isn't causing any ill feelings. With freindly discussion in mind I will continue in the hope that I can continue to learn.

 

With two people on board it takes around 27 inches of manifold pressure to hover. I just did about 5 max performance take offs today with a DA of around 3500 ft and field elevation of 1300 ft with a 185 lb person and 165 lb person on board. Each started from a low hover and as we started to climb we eased forward with the cyclic. We maintained a continuous climb to well over 50ft with out covering more than fifty feet of ground (perhaps less). It was just as if you were in your R22 and started climbing while easing forward into ETL. There was about a 5 knot headwind.

 

When hovering solo at 1300 ft field elevation it takes approximately 24 inches of manifold pressure.

 

Thanks for clarifying the cyclic travel. I mistakingly interpreted and thought you were speaking of collective travel.

 

As far as the Ausie question . . . it matters what blades they have and any other non stock modifications they may have made when saying that a certain part failed. Some of the different blades that people put on call for a much higher rpm and that of course would increase the wear on the rotor components. I am sure you know of certain shaft failures that were caused by an infamous mod, so now you know why I was asking about the blades and the type of ops they were doing.