New Stuff Menu

Helicopter, Kit helicopter, home built helicopter, experimental helicopter

Sport Helicopter & Pilot
Global Information Exchange

April 2oo3's
New Stuff
Menu
UP Dated
April 27st, 2,oo3

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

Dell Computers
If U are gonna buy a Dell computer, Please consider click thru this web site when you order it on line......... SHnPGIE, may get a small commission, this will help SHnPGIE
pay it's bills to stay on the web for another year.

Hungry Russian Bird
Mi24

Today's Flight in New Zealnad
by Simon Clark

Anyone know and or have any inforamtion on this helicopter?

It turns out to be Ben Cope's Bug Mk1, the predecessor of the Mk2 G-BXTV. He built it in spruce from scratch in a year, has hovered it and now uses it as prototype for a heli
simulator.

T 62 Warning WARNING ! just saw the Helicycle video,Mr Schrams lack of knowledge in turbine power plant,operation and modification shows in his video,The T-62 he offers has some defects ,USE EXTREME CAUTION ,He may build a nice airframe ,BUT the power plant as is modified ex cedes criteria for safe operation......

DONALD HILLBERG
rotermouse@earthlink.net

Explanation of the above
by D. Hillberg The video is a work labeled"kerosene fever" by Eagle R&D, it has Mr. Schram
showing his mods to the T-62 T32 and its operation in a test 'dino' his mods to the compressor
case changes some important criteria in the engine that increases the chance of engine failure,
1. compressor support cut outs, it reduced weight but also changes stiffness and thermal
reactions /will affect compressor alignment and touching of the high speed spool to case that
will lead to catastrophic failure.
2. rework of compressor liner,looks nice but changes air flow,in his video is an engine surging
,on the verge of compressor stall
3.oil system changed ,more apt to leak, misting lubrication of roller bearing in question.posable
high speed bearing problems
4.start procedure is too complex multi button use,starting is the most important time in the
service life of a turbine.
5.Using "start fuel" to accelerate to 60% will warp combustor, Start fuel is used on light off ,
FCU accelerates.
6.multi buttons to engage rotors,Why"?"
7. In the tape the explanation of "Hot start" is incorrect .(In the tape B. J. isn't too knowledgeable
in the use and care of a T-62)
8.The mods to the T-62 in reducing weight is out stripped in reduction of reliability like in the
wind star too many gizmos.
9.The light weight starter in the tape is a KISS aviation Idea from 1996 and the ECU is also a
KISS idea.
10. I have the prints design criteria and manuals for the T-62 T32 and the mods done to the
engine are not in the best interest of safety,for only a few pounds a few other mods can be done
with out a compromise in safety.
See the video your self and you be the judge, Is it as safe as they can make it ? P. S. the first Turbine Heli cycle had an engine failure and landed in a pig farm,pilot ok. as I said B.J. can build a nice airframe but he is a little short in the powerplant side.(How many hours does he have in Normal category certified helicopters?) fly safe

In Defence of the T 62
by Douglas Schwochert

For years I have been reading all about how we should not be using APU or GPU turbine engines in experimental aircraft. But is still being done with good success. Mr Hilberg viewed a 45 minute tape of the T32 engine that is being installed in the Helicycle helicopters and from just watching this tape he has determined that the new T32 is un safe for aircraft operation.

If I were going to make statements like the ones made aginst the new T32 I at the least would want to examine and test the engine my self.I do not think he is aware of the research and testing that has been done on the new T32 Eagle R&D has just not slapped on a different gear box and called it good.The new engine is very well thought out and designed.

1 REPLY

Yes it is possible that the holes may weaken the housing or change the thermal expansion rate of the housing.If you look at the supports in question you would see that they are different thicknesses it were that critical on the expansion rate in this aera I would think that the ribs would be all the same thickness since the ribs would expand at a different rate. I mounted an extra housing that I have in my lathe and put a dial indicator on it I heated one of the ribs to 300 degrees .150 Degrees over it's normal operating temp. Guess how much deflection I had.None.

2 Reply

The compressor housings are remachined to Mil specs right out of the T 32 overhaul manual.The surging that I heard in the video was caused by the governor. At slower speeds the governor does not control the engine speed very efficent.if you watch closely at the throttle linkage you can see it moving with the surge.as far as the whistling noise that you can hear it states in the T32 overhaul manual that the noise is normal in overhauled engines and is not a detriment to the engine

3 Reply

4 Reply

I am not even going to bother with this one. Big deal we need to push an extra button to make it start. If it were a piston engine we would need to pull the choke.

5 Reply

This one is my favorite.The start fuel is only on as long as the starter is engaged. that is approx.5 seconds/ the engine is no wheres near 60% The extra button that we need to push to approx 50% it to full fuel the the engine until the governor takes over. the governor does not start controling the fuel untill 50% If we did not full fuel the engine we would get a hung start. Right in the T32 operating manual it states that the start fuel does not shut off untill 96% even if the start fuel was not shut off intill 60% what difference would that make when the normaly it is not shut off untill 96% Hmmm.

6 Reply

The multi buttons are to engage the rotors one is a slow speed the other is a fast speed . The slow speed is for your initial engagment of the rotors"why stress the rotor system with a harsh engagement.

once the rotors are up to the engine speed the fast speed is to finish tensioning the belts to it's stops. This was explaned very clearly in the tape. I do not even know why this was a concern. I understood it.

7 Reply

8 Reply

A T62-T32 engine like we all see them advertised weighs 150 Lbs add a reduction unit and an alternator and you have 185 lbs the Helcycle engine now weighs 140lbs with an alternator and reduction unit.I my self thing that is a great reduction in weight well worth having a few extra gizmos added to the engine.that is 45 Lbs less than what it would be without the new gear cases.45 Lbs in a helicopter is quite a reduction in weight.we can now hold 5 more gallons of fuel without exceeding it's gross weight.that turns into 20 more minutes worth of flying
time before re fueling.

9 Reply

Before I even knew that Kiss Aviation even existed. one of my goals was to get rid of the 25 lb starter on the T32 engine.it was just common sense to do so.The governor system that BJ and everyone else uses was not a hard choice it is the only aftermarket governor system that can be found. most of us purchased these engines from Avon Aero this is the system that recomend they told me what one to use just like they tell everyone else what one to use/ I wonder who told K##S what one to use.

10 Reply

I do not think that Mr Hilberg knew what the total weight of the engine with all the accerories that are needed to mount the engine in a Helicycle would be approx.180 lbs I think the reduction of 45 LBS is well worth it11 Reply

This one really makes me mad. Someone opening there mouth without all the facts.The Helicycle did NOT have an engine failure!!! It was an electrical interferance problem with the governor system that shut the engine down.I performed an autorotation into a field from 350 ft Agl with only very minor damage to the tail rotor and that happened when the helicopter sunk in the mud after landing. The Helicycle did a perfect auto and landing thanks to BJs engineering.The part about the pig farm I have no idea where that came from.

Douglas Schwochert Helicycle builder #29

Subject: Why you *CAN* use an APU for powered flight.

I was doing a search on used and surplus turbine engines and found this forum. After reading some of the comments I felt strongly compelled to issue the following...

I personaly have no experience with turbine engines other than operating them in a ground support and maintenance capacity while I served in the military. There is the bit I've learned through study etc as I'm sure anyone considering such an endevour would have.

My background has more to do with inovation and application of critical thinking based problem solving. I've worked in R&D for roughly 15 years in various research and engineering research projects doing experimental support, mechanical, electrical, electronic, and software.

Resonance and rpm:

As to Mr. Mark Johnston's comments about throttle setting and inadvertantly operating the engine at its resonant frequency,.. I feel the only real implementation worth
considering is that of a constant velocity propeller. This reduces the turbine to a constant velocity machine with varying torque.

There are many implementations that don't involve a complex gearbox. One could certainly do thought experiments involving things like eletrically coupling the propeller shaft to the apu. Although heavy, the efficiency of producing electricity to drive a motor to drive the propeller shaft would comparable to a mechanical transmission. Implimentation may not be feasable, but it proves that an apu designed for producing power (for instance) could be used to provide thrust even though it was not designed to do so. This is the best example of isolating the turbine from its intended purpose to a new purpose while convincing the turbine it is doing what it was ment to (that I can think up).

Based on this form of thinking, one can attempt to find methods that are between the simplest (although difficult to make flight weight) to the best example (an engine system specifically designed for the application).

The next step might be fluid coupled, ie., hydraulic coupling. Maybe even a specially designed torque converter.

Then finally, direct, mechanical transmission. This of course neglects what's required to convert the engine's operating parameters to the new use.

As to turbine starters I have no experience or knowledge, however most apu's I'm aware of are the ground power and airbourne power type. The airbourne type are indeed designed to be operated in any conditions the aircraft itself would fly in.

As far as engine lifetime and blade fatigue, if the blades are not purchasable one could make blades.In fact one could make an entire turbine engine. People *do* make turbine engines from scratch. Some make them from old automobile turbos. Some make them completely from scratch. Certainly the *first* turbines engines were made form scratch. If one had concern as to life times, one could design special jigs to turn out blades quickly and simply replace them every 100 hours. Operating turbines as close to Stoichiometric ratios as possible has been the object of much engineering. The problem is that the gas temperature goes up the closer you get and materials technology is hard pressed to operate in these regimes. So what did engineers in the past do? They operated slightly rich to lower the temperature.In rocket engines one main problem is melting the chamber and nozzle. One solution was to spill shield gas through small holes around the inside to protect the nozzle and chamber surfaces. In turbine engines The use of cooling channels in blades and bleed air to shield critical components is a common technique.
If one can't have an 87% effecient engine is 65% ok? If that's too hard is 35% usable? I think that's up to the person or persons doing the implementing. The point is that if you can't run an engine at it's designed temperature you can derate it. The point is that inovation can overcome even the limited design parameters of a given piece of equipment. This is not speculation or extrapolation, it is done.

I think we all would agree engines and turbine engines in particular are the subject of extreme engineeringeffor to make usable and reliable. But I have to say that after reading your comments I find the same attitude that I have encountered from numerous other engineers in varied disciplines over the years. That of which seems to say: DON'T DO IT or JUST SAY NO TO HOME BREWED INOVATION.

Based on the attitudes of engineers with this (apparent) attitude it's amazing we have aircraft at all.

When turbines were first used in aircraft they had life times measured in minutes and tens of hours. You know they still flew the damn things.

Rocketry has to be the most volatile and failure ridden form of flight yet, men and women strap themselves into the seats of these things and fly. They fly machines with engines that have lifetimes measured in minutes!

I would assume and hope anyone grabbing an unknown engine of *anykind* would work with the engine and learn all they could before operating it in a life-critical fashion. I know I would.

The attitude that says: you can't possibly do it because: *it's too dangerous*, *it's too hard*, *you're gonna die*, *people who know more than you had to go through.....and you can't possibly....*,*..or it'd take you all your life..*....I find througly repugnant and a detriment to the wellbeing of humanity.

Don't get me wrong. Your input is invaluable. I feel however that data should be used to inform, not as a weapon to stifle the creative spirit.

Yes, if you make a mistake you could blow your engine and fall like a hideous flaming fireball into a crowded school of kindegarteners.

We could also die tommarow from an asteroid the size of LongIsland.

More on the T62

Hi Glenn/SHnPGIE's readers,
Attached is an article from this months EAA Sport Aviation magazine about turbines and the Solars in particular. This article is the best argument so far for using APU's for man-powered flight. In the text it states:
"The Solar was designed around 1962 and over 5,000 of them have been
built," Nearhoof says. "It was designed right from the beginning to
be man-rated because it was supposed to be installed in a one-man
helicopter. The chopper project never happened, but the Solar engine
was so small and so practical that it was immediately designed into
various ground and on-board APU's.
I guess now it is pretty hard to argue about using a Solar APU engine in a one man helicopter when that engine was actually designed for a one man helicopter in the first place.
Thanks,
Dave Keck

Turbo props! A few years ago when you said those words, the only image that came to mind was of something like a King Air. Not any more. These days we've seen everything from Luscombes to Glassairs streaking across the sky with that characteristic tubine scream. Only
the Pietenpol hasn't been graced with the ant-eater nose and garbage-chute exhaust that is part and parcel of hanging a turbine where a lowly recip once resided.
It's hard to keep track of all the turbine projects, but Oshkosh 2002 played host to one that made a huge amount of sense to an awful lot of people: the ATP RV-4T. There were RV's on the field with everything from Ford V-6's to Mazda's under the hood, so finding one with a turbine in it seemed almost anticlimactic. It was too logical not to happen.
The all-aluminum finished 4T is the brain child of Chuck Nearhoof, president of ATP (Affordable Turbine Power Co., In. 156 Nearhoof Lane, Osceola, Pa 16666 814-339-7328, atpcoinc@n...) and the airplane was at times hard to see, but easy to find, on the homebuilt flight line: you couldn't see it because of the crowds around it, but it was easy to find for
the same reason. Nearhoof had a display booth back in the North 40, but he could usually be found explaining all the details of what so many saw as a really great idea-a 200 horsepower engine that would burn practically anything and only had thirteen (that's right, thirteen, as in 13) moving parts coupled to one of the most proven and respected airframes in the industry.
Nearhoof didn't start out his career intending to build engines for the homebuilt market. In fact, when he started his career, he knew nothing about aviation. He was simply a machinist looking for something to machine.
Right out of school he lived a fairly normal life of a machinistmoving from position to position, each time learning more and expanding his knowledge not only of his trade, but he became a
student of the art of problem solving. He quickly found that making a part was easy. Improving on a part or making one no one else wanted to make was where the real fun lay.
"I started out working for my father in his three car auto shop. We had the usual small machine shop there and I gravitated to using that to build non-automotive stuff."
They were right in the middle of coal country, which mean there was never a shortage of broken machinery badly in need of repair.
"A lot of the stuff we started working on was heavy mine equipment and much of it was old enough that you couldn't buy parts, you had to reverse engineer the problem and make a new part."
As they expanded out into other machinery, they began doing more and more unusual repairs to more and more unusual machinery.
"People started bringing drilling rigs to us to repair, but pretty soon we started analyzing the problems and were redesigning the rigs for the owners. We were designing and building all sorts of machinery including CNC wood working equipment. Then we started doing food
processing machinery, which required not only more precision but we had to design around the health needs of the industry."
As the company grew, so did their reputation until they found themselves working on a project so far removed from coal mining machinery, that they were on the opposite end of the precision scale.
"The job we like to tell people about was when we designed and built a machine that could classify and separate the grains of sand that were used for grinding the lenses in the Hubbell telescope. They needed a grinding medium that was made of grains that were all the same size, so we figured out a way to do that."
By this time the three-car shop had grown into a forty-one thousand square foot facility that specialized in producing custom tools and machinery for virtually any industry.
"When you make some of the really wild stuff we have made, it gives you all sorts of confidence in your abilities, so we came into the turbine project knowing we could do it because it wasn't nearly as complicated as lots of things we had done in the past."
Chuck Nearhoof came into aviation with none of the usual outside influences.
"I'm not sure why I was attracted to it, because I had no friends or family in it. It just seemed like something I ought to get involved in."
Shortly after getting his pilot's license, he discovered the world of sport aviation and, like so many others gravitated to Van's RV's.
"I looked around the experimental market, which offered a much wider range of aircraft than you'd find in normal aircraft, and I liked the RV. I found a partially built RV-3 and brought it into my shop intending to use a Lycoming on it just like everyone else did."
Nearhoof is nothing, if not an inquisitive person. His life-long interest in things mechanical wouldn't let him accept any conventional wisdoms about something as important as the engine he was about to hang in his airplane. It was a machine and it was a machine he knew very little about, so he set about to cure what he saw as a lack of knowledge.
"I wanted to know more about the engine I'd be flying, so I went to one of those seven day, crash courses offered on the engine. Part of the course included a tour of the plant," he laughs. "I don't know what I was expecting but I didn't expect what I found. My own shop has state of the art CNC everything with the ability to make virtually any shape out of any material. I stepped into the old engine plant and felt as if I'd stepped back into 1937. I looked at those engines and knew for a fact that we could do the same thing better and with less cost because of our more modern machining centers."
Chuck hustled home with an idea in his head that had little to do with building an RV. "We looked around the industry and it was obvious that conventional engines represented a technological and financial bottle neck within aviation. The very heart of the airplane was getting increasingly expensive and the technology wasn't getting any better. So, we thought we'd take the famous 0-360, do a little redesigning and build our own version of it. In other words, we were going to build airplane engines."
Good ideas seldom occur to only one man so Nearhoof wasn't surprised when he found another engine parts manufacture in the country was about to do the same thing. To make matters worse, the other manufacturer was already well along on the project and Nearhoof would come in late and slow.
"We sat around for a little while asking ourselves if there wasn't a better way to do the engine thing. That's when we asked ourselves `what's better then a normal airplane engine? A turbine,
obviously.'
"In just about every category you care to discuss a turbine has it all over any reciprocating engine. For one thing, it has so few moving parts that reliability is often astounding. Also, because of their very nature, they aren't really too particular what you use for fuel, but, of course, some fuels work better than others.
"We knew only the most basic information about turbine engines, butthere was an obvious way to fix that. The government is a huge buyer of turbine engines so that means there is literally tons of documentation on them."
It's a well known fact that if the government bought it, engine or otherwise, chances are every scrap of paper having to do with it is available through the freedom of information act. The only thing that's required is the tenacity required to borrow through mounds of paper looking for the right information.
"We made it a point to get a copy of all the documentation available on all smaller aircraft turbine engines because we wanted to see what was out there."
It didn't take long before they came to the same conclusion so many before them had already reached-when it came to small aircraft turbines the obvious choice was the Solar T-62.
"The Solar was designed around 1962 and over 5,000 of them have been built," Nearhoof says. "It was designed right from the beginning to be man-rated because it was supposed to be installed in a one-man helicopter. The chopper project never happened, but the Solar engine
was so small and so practical that it was immediately designed into various ground and on-board APU's.
"If you look at the T-62 and the time in which it was built, it's obvious that it was a very high-tech piece of equipment for the time. It was, and is, a very precise piece of equipment, which was right at the outer limits of manufacturing capabilities at the time. In the 1960's the type of tolerances demanded by the engine were so expensive to produce that the unit couldn't possibly compete with Lycoming. But that was then and this is now.
"Today any major manufacturing plant, like ours, has machine capabilities the Solar design team could only dream about. Besides the obvious improvement in precision and reliability, complex shapes are no longer a problem. You've got to love CNC machining centers."
By now you're wondering what all this manufacturing talk is about. You don't have to manufacture much if you're simply overhauling an engine. However, although the engine in the RV-4T sitting on the line at Oshkosh was an overhauled T-62, that's not where they are headed.
"Our goal is to take the most modern production techniques available and build a slightly up-dated version of the T-62 that incorporates everything we've learned about turbines in the 40 years since this engine was designed.
"Our real specialty is reverse engineering so we started analyzing the T-62 looking for strong and weak points and the only true weak point was in the fuel control system. It was designed the way you would design a control unit in 1962. It is totally mechanical and built like a Swiss watch. In fact, a third of the cost in the original engine was in the fuel control unit. Plus, it's the part of the engine most likely to fail.
"Today we don't meter fuel mechanically on anything that's even remotely modern. That's what micro processors are for. They are totally reliable but even more important, they can be easily
programmed to control fuel anyway you want it controlled. What's more, the automotive industry has made a real science out of fuel controllers. So, we just jumped on board their million dollar research programs and adapted automotive concepts to our little turbine and it turned out so well and so efficient that we're got a patent pending on the concept."
Their control units are based on automotive injectors and pumps and which pulse exactly forty-six times a second. The control unit modulates the amount of fuel duration within each cycle, which, in effect, is throttling the engine.
"We use off the shelf Bosch injectors with a custom designed and programmed processor to control the pulse width."
So, after they modified the T-62 and mounted it in a test cell what did they have?
"The basic engine was rated at 150 horsepower at sixty-one thousand rpm, which we reduce to 3200 rpm. We're going to reduce it further to 2750 rpm which will make the propeller much more effective. We're seeing significantly more than 200 horsepower out of the engine, but
we're saying that it's the equivalent of 200 horsepower knowing no one is going to be disappointed. At that power, it's burning fourteen gallons per hour and it is happiest running on kerosene, jet A or number two fuel oil, although anything will work, even bourbon."
They make their own reduction unit which is a dual planetary set up which right now is running ten to one on one cluster and two to one on the other. The gears, which are cut by a company that specializes in gears, are rated for five hundred horsepower continueous. They are also straight cut, not helical.
"The helical gear is often used to reduce gear noise which isn't a factor in an airplane. Helical gears have a thrusting action of their own that can cause reduction unit problems, where straight gears don't have any fore and aft thrust."
The reduction unit, which is housed in a 6061-T6 aluminum case hogged out of a solid billet, is lubricated by a "modified" splash system.
When the engine goes into production, the turbine wheel will be made by the same company that made the originals and ATP is anticipating a ready-to-run price of $27,000 per engine.
"The computer is all that made this project even remotely possible. The computer lets us make parts that are more precise at roughly ten percent of the cost of 1960 parts."
Okay, so now they have an engine. How about hanging it in the airplane?
"The engine only weighs 187 pounds, about half of a Lycoming, including all accessories and oil. So to keep the nose from getting too long, we crowded everything we could ahead of the firewall. The battery is up there along with a fuel tank and the motor mount is made of eighth-inch thick 4130."
The prop is an MTV-18, which is an electrically adjustable 70-inch model that is currently not in constant speed mode. He says one of the problems with a direct drive turbine, rather than a free turbine, is that the engine has to be started with the prop in zero pitch or there is too much load to crank it, so a normal prop won't work.
"We have an electronic rpm controller we haven't installed yet that will eliminate the prop control leaving the pilot with nothing but a power lever."
So, how does the engine change the performance of the airplane?
"We've only got a little over forty hours on it so we're still testing it. In one of our climb tests, however, holding the power and the speed constant in the climb, we hit 11,000 feet in nine minutes. It'll do much better than that when we get it fine-tuned.
"Right now we're limited to 165 mph IAS because of our exhaust pipe shape. We thought we could improve on what other turbine manufacturers have done and make a shorter, more aerodynamic exhaust stack. What we didn't realize is that by doing that we get a slight
aerodynamic back pressure, which causes us EGT problems as we get faster. You don't know what you don't know until you try something. We tried it, it didn't work and we now know why King Airs and the like have such protruding, non-aerodynamic appearing exhausts. So, we
really don't know how fast the airplane is because we have to stay far back on the power."
Before all you RV owners reach for your checkbook you should know that ATP isn't going to sell you a firewall forward kit for your airplane.
"We want others to get into the firewall forward business. All we want to do is manufacture the engine."
So, how soon will they be in production? They don't know exactly, but, regardless, they estimate there are 500 Solar T-62's on the market. So, until the brand new ATP unit is available, you'll just have to make do with that sooty old rebuilt Solar. Tough isn't it?

Mini 5oo Info Request
I'm build a old mini 500 and if someone change the old " pitch change plate" with the new in aluminium, please contact me because I buy the old part" pitch change plate #0011"
thanks Duilio

SnF 2oo3
Pro Drive's Turbin Rotor Way

New
ReBirth of an Angel Pages
from Todd
http://www.3cats.com/helicopter/Todd14.htm

ALLISON 250-C20 Gas turbine for sale
as a rebuildable core

Turbine assy# 6853341
S/N cae-820661

Gearbox assy
P/N 6877180
assy# cae-31622

compressor assy
p/n 685337
s/n cac 30850

Cycle counter reads
3095 cycles

This is a complete engine minus accessories removed from a servisable Bell 206 Jetranger.

engine was bought as a package with other parts and does not have current logs.

Asking price $16,000
(Sixteen Thousand US dollars)
Contact David
david@smilesa.co.za
Phone +27 11 83 297 8270 GMT +2:00