Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on January 02, 2003, 11:09:52 AM
-
http://www.airscooter.com
(http://www.airscooter.com/photos/w_flying4.jpg)
(http://www.airscooter.com/photos/w_flying3.jpg)
-
That looks interesting. But the low ceiling ( <50') would make me think twice. Its probably quite expensive too, looking at the complexity.
How about this? gyrocopter (http://www.sportcopter.com/pages/pictures.htm)
You can't hover, but you can at least get some altitude for cross-country. Gyrocopters are simple and relatively cheap, too. :)
-
a lot of cool personal A/C out there. that looks like one of 'em...PUL-10 (http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/PUL-10/body_pul-10.html)
(http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/PUL-10/new_pul-10-7.jpg)
(http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/PUL-10/new_pul-10-5.jpg)
Moller M400 Skycar (http://moller.com)? how long has this guy been at it? years...they've done teathered flights, though...$500,000 a pop
(http://www.moller.com/news/stockdemo.jpg)
(http://media.moller.com/news/hoverstills/minTether.jpg)
of course both of these need cannon in the nose
-
The ceiling is a non-issue. It will certainly go higher, but how comfortable you'll be doing it is another matter. That control setup has me wondering though... way too simplified. No collective? What provides lateral thrust to turn it on the yaw axis?
One thing I do know from my R/C experience... the tolerance for parts fit is much tighter on a chopper than a fixed-wing craft. Set that puppy down a little hard and bend something a tad. Next hop could be very interesting. ;)
-
Fixed wing for me baby:)
I can see me in something like this. I would much rather have the turbo prop engine though :D
-
neighbor picked up one of these for around $6k - 2k for the chute and 4k for the motor/seat harness
(http://amero.org/extremeairsports.com/paralight/images/YellowChute.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
The ceiling is a non-issue. It will certainly go higher, but how comfortable you'll be doing it is another matter. That control setup has me wondering though... way too simplified. No collective? What provides lateral thrust to turn it on the yaw axis?
One thing I do know from my R/C experience... the tolerance for parts fit is much tighter on a chopper than a fixed-wing craft. Set that puppy down a little hard and bend something a tad. Next hop could be very interesting. ;)
As near as I can tell... there isn't a yaw issue because the rotors counter-rotate. Kinda like a Russian Hormone helo.
-
That's what he's getting at sandman...
There doesn't seem to be a way to control yaw... that is, to rotate the vehicle. Always pointing in the same direction would make it kinda rough.
Though... to answer the previous question. Its conceivable that yaw could be controlled by increasing or decreasing RPM difference between the two blades... though I find it difficult to believe this is how he'd do it.
AKDejaVu
-
Looking at the photo a little closer, it appears the only way to control yaw is with forward momentum using the foot pedals attatched to the forward "rudder" (that nose piece).
AKDejaVu
-
Ah! So, you would have to have a minimal head of steam up to be able to yaw... see, that is kinda what bugged me looking at it. I start thinking about landing, crosswind tolerances, that sort of thing. It's easy to picture a perfect near-vertical descent, but the truth is probably more akin to a shallow approach with a flair right at touchdown. More evidence would be the pontoons (shock absorption? Stability on landing?). The thing looks like it might be rather easy to ball up on a landing...
-
I was thinking the same thing keiren. The pontoons are definately a shock absorber.
Take a look at the pics of the Air Car if you want to get slightly confused. I wonder if its done much more than launch and land. Those engines don't appear to be rotatable... and there isn't really any forward lifting structure.
The wing plane is the only thing that looks remotely practical... though I view something like that about the same as the BD-5... just big enough and fast enough to plant you 6 feet under without the extra expense of a coffin or a burrial.
AKDejaVu
-
neighbor picked up one of these for around $6k - 2k for the chute and 4k for the motor/seat harness
(http://amero.org/extremeairsports.com/paralight/images/YellowChute.jpg)
Eagler, I was thinking about getting one of these back-pack powered chutes, but my landing gear is not adequate...
(bad knees) :D
-
it looks like a blast
He lent me a video on it- put to music- really cool
just wonder how much noise you hear as you are cruising around ...
you could always get the one that has a tri-cycle go cart thingy instead of the seat:
(http://www.easyflight.com/Used/CS.jpg)
(http://www.easyflight.com/Used/Artground.jpg)
-
Here's what I'm waiting for.. (back in the 50's, they promised we would all have them by now...)
-
Ultralight pilot here... flew Eipper Quicksilvers. They used modified snowmobile engines, and sound pretty much like your typical two-stroke wailing away a short distance from your ear. It's loud, at least by my estimation. You wouldn't be able to talk to a passenger sitting next to you, I can tell you that.
-
The Air Scooter actually looked pretty cool. Saw a write-up on it in Popular Science. They saw it do a test flight, tho it had problems with the engine the guy was using at the time. He is having a light custom 4-stroke engine built for it. As I recall the foot pedals are NOT a control mechanism, and all control is done through the handles. Also, the projected price wasn't unreasonable at $35k. Of course, that's the projected price.
I'll see if I can find the article...
SOB
-edit- Heh, I guess the article is linked from their site:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,319699,00.html
-
Just breezing over the article, looks like the price was $25k-$50k.
SOB
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
...Take a look at the pics of the Air Car if you want to get slightly confused. I wonder if its done much more than launch and land. Those engines don't appear to be rotatable... and there isn't really any forward lifting structure....
check out their web site http://www.moller.com … if the thing works nearly how they say it will (computer piloted, 300 MPH, 20 MPG on regular gasoline, soft touchdown in any level 25' diameter circle), its a big deal, but they've be progressing very slowly since i 1st heard about the thing in '97...might be an investment scam
-
So the do rely on the engines as the sole forward lift provider. I still would not in any way shape or form trust that. No way.
As for the gyrocopter... SOB... it still looks like it relies on forward motion... just with the rudders in the tail. You'd still need to have some kind of aproach/forward motion landing for it.
AKDejaVu
-
Sandman, Deja... the Kamov helis (Hormone, Helix, etc) control yaw by tilting those big slab-like vertical stabilizers side-to-side in the downwash of the main blades. Not as much positive control as a tail rotor, but still effective... less to go wrong also.
I can only imagine this godawful thing controls yaw the same way.
Collective could be controlled by a twist-grip, perhaps.
I'd love to have a gyro, but only if it were a Wallis. :)
-
Well that makes sense... though you'd be torquing the hell out of the tail section to do it.
Still to verticle with too many moving parts overhead with no protection. A big no thanks on that one.
AKDejaVu
-
(http://www.luftfahrt.ch/images/pc219.jpg)
-
Is that the new T-6 Texan II?
-
No the Texan II is based on an uprated PC9, with the same engine as this one I think though..
Its probably real close. I think the Texan II doenst have the swept wing and some of the training specific avionics of this one.
Thats a PC21.
-
CC, I see now. heres the texan II
-
Yeah, like Dux said...the article indicated that it directed the downward airflow with the rudder. Hopefully it gets built and people buy it, that way we can look at the results of other peoples' trials! :)
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
Yeah, like Dux said...the article indicated that it directed the downward airflow with the rudder. Hopefully it gets built and people buy it, that way we can look at the results of other peoples' trials! :)
SOB
Yeah, or read their obituaries :)
-
Eagler,
Those parachute thingys are pretty safe, and I would suggest the trike gear. However, as my 650+ hours in ultralights recall, you will get bored within 2 months of not having the ability of to go anywhere, as they are slow. Find an old Eipper MXL(or a new one if you can afford it) with a Rotax engine, give the plane an extensive inspection with someone who knows ultralights, then the sky's the limit. A couple of my friends from Illinois flew them to Lakeland(EAA) and back to Illinois with no problems. The Eipper MXL has a double-surfaced wing with ailerons, and rudder pedals, and can be flown in very high winds, and is fast for an ultralight. I suggest a recreational pilots license or extensive training before flight as you will need to know the FAR's to be safe(r). The most fun I have ever had flying aircraft on a budget, was an ultralight, except for aerobatics, and that cost was just too high(Citabria and Decathalon). Of course flying is like drugs, and at the time, I was hooked. I can show you my divorce papers...yes my name is Thorns, I am an ex-airplane addict ;)
Thorns
-
I hear your pain. My wife made me stop as well. Something about "not wanting to raise our kids alone"... ;)
I flew the MX, MXL and a hybrid the owner made. I agree, get the double-surface, fully symetrical wing. It has true three axis control, and was very tolerant of crosswind. It'll also do about any light aerobatics you have the nerve to try. On a 45hp Rotac it was a sweet little bird.