Update: Helicopter is now in California undergoing some upgrades to the wiring. As an ex Safari owner, I find this bird much harder to work on due to the fiberglass body work. It does hover nicely and the fuel consumption in a hover was just above 10gph. I do have a problem with head room and wearing a helmet. My first travel thru translation was shocking. The bird was doing about 70 before I could put the brakes on. Sufficient Power....
Well that’s awesome. Two seats and a turbine. Should have power to spare and great dependability. Curious as to build costs compared to R44 and Hughes 300C off the shelf helicopters.
Thanks for posting the cool video! Sorry you have to hear all the CRAP the naysayers have to say........ I think your heli is super cool and the fact that it's a turbine makes it even better.
@chopperj11 Cool... you learn something new everyday. I have my private helicopter rating and am used to counterclockwise blades. I've heard it doesn't take much to get used to the clockwise helo's because you pretty much react to what the helicopter is doing anyway. I've hear from previous CFI that the rotorways are VERY nice flying little helicopters. That turbine is totally awesome. I've heard they autorotate very well too. Which part of the country are you in? I need to build my flight time.
There is only one. on the right tip is a counterweight. If there are two persons, the counterweight is moved to the rear, left(IIRC) skid. just a design issue, its a very light AC so weight/balance must be watched at all times.
That thing must be a real hot rod! Or did you have to de-rate the Allison for the transmission, etc.? In any case I'll bet it has really strong high altitude performance.
Why do the blades spin backwards?!! I thought all Rotorway Execs spun counterclockwise like other American helicopters. Did you do this on purpose? And for what reason? Thanks.
@chopperj11 I'm originally from Northern Kentucky, across from Cincinnati, then I lived in Louisville for 11 years before coming back in the Army. I was just in Sellersburg visiting friends at Christmas time. I'd love to stop by and fly with you, if you'd be interested, next time I go on leave. I can bring my 5 foot long Vario helicopter too. I've always been intrigued by Rotorways. Does experimental category still log as helicopter time towards higher ratings?
Nice video. As a former Army scout pilot, i had the unfortunate opportunity to stick a tail rotor into a small tree while hiding from "the evil forces from the dark side", my AO was clearing my tail...I guess not good enough though. I just noticed how close you were to your hanger. How long have you been flying the Exec, and did you have a piston before the turbine?
@@jrgb9945 I have heard the rebuilt turbines are around 60,000 plus whatever necessary to link up to Rotorway's running gear plus the 98,000 for a talon 600....don't know what the allowance for their own motor is....Last I saw the Talons were on sale for around 89,000 w/stock motor
No, Sython has a split windshield. Pause video at 2:43 - 2:45, and compare with this photo www.helistart.com/pictures/Alpi-Aviation-AH130.jpg BTW. I wonder why author of video does not want to provide a model of the helicopter...
I don't normally reply but I had to on this one. This ship is sitting undamaged in the building that you see here. I have been flying airplanes since 1977 and helicopters since 1994 so I know a little about flying. I have more flying time in helicopters than airplanes, and have time in several different models of helicopters. I have taken off and landed in front of this building hundreds of times with no mishaps and I have had friends do the same with their ships. You show your ignorance by talking about "rotor induced shear". You had to make that up because that isn't a helicopter term that myself or anyone else has heard of. There are other terms that helicopter pilots use to describe turbulence caused when hovering close to structures. It's all in knowing how to deal with it.
Since you mentioned ignorance, I'm happy to have used a term or phrase that I (someone with a professional background in physics, engineering and atmospheric sciences) would use to describe what can occur, in a cause (rotor induced) and effect (shear) relationship-as opposed to someone who willingly tries to justify repeatedly taking off and landing within very close proximity to a structure using the argument of successive repetition-the "hundreds of times with no mishaps" argument. To hopefully dispel your hubris of flight using the "hundreds of times with no mishaps" argument pertaining to successive repetition with regard to safety, I trust you realize there are all kinds of variables outside of your control-in all aspects of life on our fair planet-that are never static. When it comes to safety and variables, the reduction of any recognized variables of risk that compromise safety that are within one's control promotes increased safety and decreased risk. The complete elimination of risk variables is what is strived for, however, the zero factor of failure is statistically unattainable when it comes to vehicles of modern transportation. Corners can be cut and time can be saved for the sake of convenience-for example, not taking the extra time and effort to position a helicopter farther away from a structure when it is taken out of a hangar prior to takeoff. Convenience, more often than not, introduces variables of risk that reduce safety. Using the above example, a takeoff (or landing) in close proximity to a structure will more likely result in a catastrophic failure than doing so with no proximity to a structure. All aspects of induced shear aside, if a mechanical failure occurred within seconds of takeoff or landing that resulted in gyroscopic autorotation, I'd hope to be as far away from a structure as possible instead of landing near one, as you do, for the sake of convenience. You can choose to remain somewhat overconfident in your piloting ability ("hundreds of times with no mishaps") and continue to invite variables of risk that are well within your control into your flight plan. In summary with all snarky and sarcastic tone aside, I'm not the "I told you so" type, but I am the "better to be safe than sorry" type. I'm sure there are people and family that care about you. At least consider what I'm saying here for your own safety and possibly the safety of others.
+jimbodunky Rotor induced shear. Hahaha. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Tryin' to sound smart, eh? Hahaha. If you are smart and have a degree, which I don't believe you for a second, you would know that being ignorant doesn't make you an idiot. However, spouting off in an attempt to sound knowledgeable does. Then, not only admitting it, but trying to make something up once more adds to it. Ignorant simply means you don't know. Let's pretend you do have a degree in physics, I'm fine with saying I am ignorant of all of the principles of physics. Doesn't hurt my feelings or make me dumb. That being said, I'm not stupid enough to comment on a physics professor's video and put a bunch of words together to make it sound like I have a clue about physics. But if I did, and was called out, I would come back with a bunch of big words to make it sound like the physics prof didn't know what I was talking about! Hahaha. I'll back your statement +chopperj11, no one's ever used that term.
I have a second video of me coming in for a landing over the power lines. With this turbine engine this thing has the power to go straight up for hundreds of feet. You must be a moron.
Clearly this aircraft can clear trees and power lines, for whatever reason that he does not owe you an explanation for, he did not in this video. No need to troll his posts with rude remarks and insults.
