January, February n March's 2oo2's
New Stuff
Menu
 UP Dated
  April 3rd,  2,oo2

Official USA Time, Hawaiian - Alaskan - Pacific                                  Mountain -  Central - Eastern - Caribbean

---

Dell Computers
If U are gonna buy a Dell computer, please click here first,
it may help SHnPGIE stay on the web if you do.

---

Dietary supplements make old rats youthful, may help
rejuvenate aging humans, according to UC Berkeley study.

---

FYI
The host of this web site took his wife to see Time Machine last night.
Sad to day only a tad interesting.
Defiantly not worth the $7.25 each it cost.
Suggest U wait till it is a $1.99 video rental
n
the pop corn cost you a quarter on your own stove.

---

has anyone ever built and safely flown a G1

Regards
Gabor K.
Canada

Lee Winningham
Ft. Wainwright, Alaska

I have seen the Mini in Drag, a two place, Allison powered A/C and like Cesear, it gets a thumbs down. I talked to the master  Head cheese and he attacked and defended his baby ,I will list a number of faults in the "Drag Queen" ,And to cover my but, These are my opinions ,(25 years worth)  Now where do I start?

1. Carbon fibre forward cockpit, Once compromised will do nothing to protect the pilots. And
fractured carbon is sharper than sharp ,it will cut you ,stab you, wipe you out.

2. Rounded edges on the tail fan ,Air flow separation / Coannda effect will defect yaw thrust
stability,Increase pilot work load,And  as fat as the attachment is to the tail gear box not good
for flow/noise/use of power.(looks like bow thruster on boat)and as short coupled it will be a
foot full.  (damn it still looks like a bat part)

3.inproper testing of blades (the web site makes no mention of a real test ,pulling the blade up on
a rig is fun to see but its not cyclic load/sympathetic excitement testing used .He makes mention
that he will not have provisions for pallance.Bad bad

4.Engine to Main gear box attachment no give. I can see transient torque loads damaging the
P.T.O. or cracking the engines main gear case, Any twist,bending,or axial misalignment will reduce the service life of the Allison.

5.No fire wall,and any thing in the baggage compartment will wreak of exhaust fumes,Or worse
the composite body or cowl  will light off ,Nothing worse then roasting at 1000 ft,

6.fuel structure said to be molded composite under seat area,I hope its a crash resistant bladder.

7.multi blades to a point is good ,But remember the more blades the more drag in an auto,so like
a 500 or worse the pilot will need a window between his legs to see where hes going. And also the more blades you have the more parts too,and that adds to the cost,and in aerodynamics you will also cost you the unwanted interaction of shed wake vortices rolling under the closely following blade and the increased chance of vortex ring state with so many blades buzzing around above you.

8.Unrealistic performance values,with a steel tube frame,plastic covered body,its not a llama.

9.Nonstandard instrument layout  not good for a pilot too much flash,no function,like a Mini all
show no go.

10. smooth belly ,flow stagnation and random separation points will be hard to hover,like an A
star it will wallow and oscillate  in ground effect.

12. 222 like nacelles drag drag drag  and the rounded edges might induce dutch roll (need
fences)

13.Steel tube frame,Not required for a modern Helicopter.Too heavy for the true designer of
helicopters.( no steel in the 500 or 206 or CH-53 or other high performance Helicopter.)

14.Air flow around engine not uniform might lead to cracking on the hot end or ingestion of
exhaust gases .

15.composite seat area,not a design feature for crash force absourbtion,Once compromised it
will not protest the pilots from injuries,Might even add to the sevarity of injuries sustained.

16.If the hub is machined aluminum and not steel I fear a fretting type failure and blade
separation .(This was just a thought until confirmed by another source.)

17. Untried engine drivetraine combination/surging might be possible ,Ill grant them this one for
now.

18. no room between the rotors and tail boom. I can predict a strike and in flight breakup,Needs
more space.

19.stablizers too big.for desired pitch moment. will nose over in 1st stage of autorotation.adding
to boom strike.

20.Too short coupled needs more length on boom,will not have authority over the torque,

21.My wife (from China) doesn't like it.

So many designers just because they have disposable income think they have the winning
combination and copy a piece of junk and improve on it ,They still have a piece of junk,Its better
to start from scratch and fail then ,succeed with junk that may kill some poor S.O.B. because
good looks can kill.

Don /Rotermouse@earthlink.com              These are my opinions.
 

--- DONALD HILLBERG
--- rotermouse@earthlink.net
View Don Hillberg's hilo experiencs

Dear Glen,
Enjoy your site. I tried to email Vic from your  Brantly section and the highlighted address came back as undeliverable. Any idea of how to contact him? I'm  looking for a B2B and his msg. stated he had several of them.
Thanks,                            Steve Taylor copterdr69@cox.net

I have a turbomach T63-T-40LC - 1 on the tag and second line goes as follows P/N 55820/163207-100 just wondering what my Shaft HP is with this unit.. I located the specs on your sight but it was listed 150 40 and since this is a one speed unit I was not sure what the
150 40 meant..  Any info would be appreciated...

Thanks.. Roger Reynolds, rreynold@nemonet.com

I need any information/plans/ideas on modifications to be done on the Scorpion 133 helicopter.

1.Can I use the excisting rotor swash plate & modify it to a 4th arm for collective pitch to cancel out the old cable system.3 control rods;2 for sideways control & 1 for aft-forward. all 3 will lift/lower the swash plate for collective control.

2.Any modification to change from main chain drive to  a gearbox type main drive.

3. Does any one knows about the Mazda 13B engine modified to the Scorpion 133 helicopter + a shaft driven tailrotor system.

We stay in Africa & our currency exchange rate against the U$ is not strong. 12 N$ for 1 U$. Very expensive to order any parts from U.S.A.  I need plans on modifications to constuct & let the Scorpion 133 fly agian.

Any info will be higly appreciated.

Thank you for interesting Web site.
F.Sutil -  "CCA Fernando" ccair@iafrica.com.na
 
 

Hi Mr. Joubert

I wanted to constuct & build a Scorpion 133 heli but came upon the e-mail you send to Sport Helicopter & pilot Web page.

Need to find out how did the Rebel project proceed from last time you where testing it.

Did you complete the project & is it flying. Is there construction plans for it.

Thank you
F.Sutil
Windhoek;Namibia

    I just finally finished Red Bird Down. It was very hard to read. I have every scout pilot book there is I think and like those stories. This one was more on the politics of the war though with some scout stories.

The book is very long and repetitive but I think if you like the scout books you can deal with it. Low Level Hell is still the best.

There are talks of a movie someday from that one.

Clayton,

Hi there,

I know the question I'm going to ask is off topic, but I've tried to obtain the answer from
lots of different sources and no luck as of yet.

I have been thinking of a jet aerobatic airplane that would use two 1500-2000lb class  jet engines. As powerplants I could only find the 2900lb st General Electric CJ610,  way too powerful for my plan. That apart from the Williams FJ44, which would fit the  bill nicely, but is off bounds for homebuilders.

My idea is to find a suitable engine in the former Eastern Block. Does anyone know of  such an engine from the former Soviet Union or any of the former socialist countries?

I'll be very grateful for any info on such and engine.

My best regards

Octávio Rafael

hi i bout the planes for the g1 many year ago have not done any think yet any tip your hits updated plans would be nice and have you floen it how is it

                                thanks for your time
                                          Mike Burk

hello.

I have a question that maybe you can give an answer.

Do you think that is it possible to find an exec 90 for 20 000$ ?
 

thank you very much to try to answer me.

No Name/Signature

I was glad to see this forum-type page about miniature homebuilt helos.  At one time, I was certainly interested in the G-1.  As an engineer with long-standing interest in aircraft, I simply don’t believe that many of these “micro” helicopters have been designed safely.  Sure, they are light.  They require no licence.

Technically, they require absolutely no pilot training.  Most of the helos we are talking about have been designed to be within the capabilities of any average person to build, using only simple tools.  This is both a good thing and a bad thing, of course.  One the one hand, many people are absolutely capable of building and flying such an aircraft.  On the other hand, many more people are simply not capable of building and/or flying such an aircraft.  Simply put, the desire to build and fly one of these miniature helicopters is simply not enough.  Without some extensive knowledge about standard aviation mechanics, a person should not even attempt to build one of these helos.  And without some form of professional-level training, a person should not attempt to fly one of these helos.  Of course this is a free country, and we are all allowed to make potentially stupid (even life-threatening) decisions.  So many of you will, most likely, choose to build your own mini-helo, despite the problems of tremendous design flaws (which many of you have realized already), mechanical and/or piloting inaptitude, et cetera.  Personally, I would not accept any design which does not include all of the proven mechanical control features of a full-sized helicopter.  You should demand a kit with full cyclic and collective controls, at the very least.  I am very unimpressed with “fixed pitch” and “rotor tilt” designs, as they lack the precision flight control that is necessary on such an aircraft.  The words “swash plate” and “helicopter” should always go hand-in-hand, in my opinion.  In the event of engine failure, how do you autorotate if your mini-helo has a fixed pitch main rotor?  The answer is: You don’t.  From what I understand, the G-1 has a spring-loaded tail rotor pitch mechanism.  I would love to know what the G-1 designer had in mind when he/she came up with that idea.  Simplicity, I’m assuming.  Well, simplicity is very rarely a satisfactory haracteristic.  Removing so-called “complicated” mechanical parts from a helicopter in order to make it lighter (or easier to build, or easier to fly, or what have you) is tantamount to premeditated suicide.  When it comes to airframes, powerplants, and flight controls, cutting corners is never a good thing.  Sure, things like swash plates and functional rudder-controlled tail rotors are not the easiest things for most people to build, or even to understand.  That is exactly why building and flying helicopters is something that shouldn’t be done by the “average” person.  If God intended for everyone in the world to be able to fly their own personal helicopter, he would have ensured that we were all millionaires with lots of extra money to throw into the endeavor. Regardless, I still enjoy the concept of flying my own micro-helo.  I will certainly be building one very soon.  I will
most likely be making extensive technical changes to the design, however.  Thus far, I have not found one single kit that encorporates all of the features I feel are necessary for proper helicopter operation.  When I find one, I’ll probably join in the ranks of people with a death-wish.

"Clint K.Campbell clintkc@axs.net

I want to buy and fly a Mini 500.  I have read many reports which address the Mini 500 "problems".  I am still very interested in purchasing a finished Mini
500.

I fly an experimental airplane and have had to rely on designing and having replacement parts provided by the individuals who created the different components.  I am comfortable with this process, but need to better understand the supply system available for the Mini 500.

I have only one major concern...where can I get replacement parts and upgrades?  Can the owner's group provide me a list of the parts suppliers (addresses and components which they manufacturer..and if possible prices for each component)?

Can your group help me?   Put me in touch with persons who can?

Jerry L. Conners, PE
Civil Engineer
Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
775-688-1253 (work)
775-847-0214 (home)
PO Box 509
Virginia City, Nevada 89440

carfone wrote:

   Hi all, I had a telephone conversation with Juerg who is also a Mini 500 owner in
  Switzerland who told me that engine seizure was found to be the cause of the crash in
  the Italian part of Switzerland. The pilot was climbing out after take off when it
  happened so he had a high power setting with a lot of pitch when it happened. He had
  a tail boom strike afterwards that lead to the one blade being shucked. We had quite a long conversation  and I advised him to change the reduction drive ratio  to have the 582 running at lower rpm. If possible the same rpm as what they use on the CH7 Angel as they never have engine problems at all. Maybe all of you out there can consider doing that.

Regards Hennie

BUT

I owned a CH-7 Angel n put 130 hours on it with the same engine..........

In my opinion it is the way 582 is mounted in the M5oo that causes the problem not the 582 it
self..........

Glennnnnnnnnnn

You can ad this if you want to my first message.

Please check my post on the rotor craft conference under Mini 500 and you will understand my
view better.
I also think it is the use of a cog belt which must create vibrations it self and than sent them  directly thru the crank shaft along with the vary limited amount of  shock absorption the 4 skimpy motor mounts give isolation to the frame may also cause premature engine failures, Glennnnnnn

I read in your New Stuff about problems of Rotax 582 mounted in Mini 500.

As I told you in my last e-mail, we also have the same engine in our CH-7 Angel. It has ran very well for more than 300 hours with little problems!!!  It still runs so well that it is actually  really a pity to overhaul or change it as the factory suggests all owners doing at 300 hours.

Incidentally, we liked the Angel so well we also have a CH-7 Kompress.

Ciao  Lorett
 
 

    Date:  Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:34:10 EST
   From:  PIIVINCE@aol.com
       To:  <sporth@ptd.net>

Hi Dave,

I was reading your comments about turbines and was wondering if your position has changed on the JFS100. A few people have solved the turbine cooling problem. I have used couple of paxton (real... not via a person out there selling standard fuel pumps for a similar application) oil pumps capable of running in excess of 300 degrees to pump the oil through some fanned coolers. Next I have used an idle control designed by Mr.Gerald Kauth to reduce idle to about 65%. Also, Mr.kauth designs a drive system for the BD5 which attaches directly to this unit. This with an adjustable prop all should work well. Other people have been successful with this type of drive system in the KR2 (Steve Trentman) as well as another group which created the Zodiac System. I understand that the JFS design was for a turbine to start a larger turbine... but you would think that the military with all of their Mil Specs, that the design would be excellent; even
better than the commercial market.  Also, if this seem like all of the ingred ients for disaster... what would you think about a modification of an Allison A700 for turboprop application with a 2 to 1 grear reduction to reduce the 6k shaft to a controllable 3k output... or perhaps a transmission design to eliminate the need for a variable pitch prop? Please let me know.

Please understand that I am an experimenter that has received little feed back from people that have actually done what I am trying to do. Also... sometimes it is hard to distinguish a person that is looking to create a market for surplus engines like the JFS100 which they have available for sale versus some one actually looking to apply the light weight power of this turbine for experimental use.  Consequently, any input you can provide would be truely appreciated.

Also, I would be willing to document all of my work and research to any one looking for an experimental application limited to all except for actual flying. Until I have a complete understanding where I can, in complete confidence have faith in using the JFS100 for a flight system... will not be involved in helping another to risk their life based on info thich is
incomplete. And this requires time and research.

Sincerely
Vince Bertone - PIIVINCE@aol.com
Long Island NY