Helisport CH-77 - New ultralight helicopter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 752hPa
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helisport CH-77 - New ultralight helicopter
The makers of the CH7 Kompress have unveiled a new machine - the CH77 Ranabot. The CH77 is based on the Kompress, with slightly larger dimensions and the notable difference of a side-by-side cabin. It's powered by a modified Rotax 914 delivering 128HP. Like the Kompress, it will be supplied in kit form, and will be eligible for the Italian (and soon the French) microlight category. The prototype (pictured) weighs a bit less than 290kg, and the production models should be about 10kg lighter. First deliveries are expected in the new year, and will cost 95.000 € excluding engine and taxes.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without offering any comment on the CH-77 itself, that seems pretty close to the cost of a brand new R22; isn't the point of a kit-build to dramatically reduce the cost of the machine? Or will people pay a premium for the fun of assembling their own aircraft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 752hPa
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An R22 here in France costs 197k€ (including delivery, excluding tax) without any options, so it's still significantly more expensive.
The CH77 running costs are likely to be considerably less. My Kompress uses 20 litres/hr of unleaded mogas, and doesn't have a 12 year life. Also, as the builder I can do most of the maintenance myself. It's based at 8000 ft where it can depart vertically at MTOW, and can comfortably overfly Mt Blanc. I think it may be the highest based helicopter in Europe.
But more importantly we're not comparing like with like. The CH77 will operate as a permit aircraft, with all the associated freedoms and economies, whereas the R22 benefits from the privileges, as well as suffering the constraints of certification.
Personally, I don't want an R22. I fly for fun, and the performance and handling of the Kompress are extraordinary.
The CH77 running costs are likely to be considerably less. My Kompress uses 20 litres/hr of unleaded mogas, and doesn't have a 12 year life. Also, as the builder I can do most of the maintenance myself. It's based at 8000 ft where it can depart vertically at MTOW, and can comfortably overfly Mt Blanc. I think it may be the highest based helicopter in Europe.
But more importantly we're not comparing like with like. The CH77 will operate as a permit aircraft, with all the associated freedoms and economies, whereas the R22 benefits from the privileges, as well as suffering the constraints of certification.
Personally, I don't want an R22. I fly for fun, and the performance and handling of the Kompress are extraordinary.
Last edited by No Foehn; 5th Jul 2011 at 12:56.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, it appears the cost of an R22 has gone up a bit since I last looked. Fair enough, at those prices, it's a whole lot less. Out of curiosity, how much does the engine add to the price tag?
Has anyone succeeded making a safe, reliable, low-cost, kit helo? Should they even try to? It's not a machine that is forgiving of engineering or assembly mistakes.
It's like trying to reduce the costs of a tea pot by making it out of chocolate
It's like trying to reduce the costs of a tea pot by making it out of chocolate
I think the kits are for sale since a few years already. Actually since 2012 according to their website CH-7 Heli-Sport. I believe there you also find links to companies that build the kit for you, in case you want to buy a factory-built CH-77.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CH-7 Heli-Sport has a poor safety record in Australia, with two crashes caused by structural failure of the stabiliser.
As the number of CH-7's in Australia is low, this is an exceptionally high percentage of failures and resultant crashes.
The ATSB crash reports for VH-SWQ and VH-JEW are at the bottom of the page. Both crashes were fatal, and in both cases, the CH-7 was destroyed.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/new...licopters.aspx
As the number of CH-7's in Australia is low, this is an exceptionally high percentage of failures and resultant crashes.
The ATSB crash reports for VH-SWQ and VH-JEW are at the bottom of the page. Both crashes were fatal, and in both cases, the CH-7 was destroyed.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/new...licopters.aspx
Hmm, that doesn't sound good! However, it has to be noted that according to the accident reports that you linked these were Cicare CH-7's, not Heli-Sport. I understand the Italian Heli-Sport has bought the design for the CH-7 from the Argentinians; not sure to what degree there are differences between the two products.
The accident report is really detailed and excellent! In many countries, a crashed ultra-light wouldn't even justify an investigation. I am impressed!
The investigation for the 2015 accident is not yet complete; there is no report yet. But the report for the earlier 2014 (VH-SWQ) accident confronts the reader with a real non-compliance extravaganza:
- The aircraft was heavily modified without any documentation, let alone testing of the impact of such modifications.
- It had signs of a hard landing (deformation) and no records of a related inspection or repairs.
- Self-made, non-compliant replacement parts (e.g., carb throttle support) were used for repairs.
- The attachment for the vertical stabiliser (that fell off in flight) was known to be cracked, and the manufacturer (Cicare) had advised to ground this aircraft pending the fitting of new stabiliser assy.
- Excessive tail vibration (that we now believe were caused by the already loose vertical stabiliser) were attributed to TR imbalance. The vibrations didn't get better after two attempts to balance the TR blades, and yet they continued to operate the aircraft.
On the regulatory side:
- Maintenance and repairs that were done at all, were done by non-authorised personnel, and were not documented.
- The aircraft was out of MPI at the time of the accident. Several due maintenance activities had been skipped.
- The operator didn't have an AOC, nor was the pilot commercially rated.
- The pilot didn't have a game rating.
- The pilot made contradictory statements about his fix wing flying experience (varying between 300 and 9.000 HRS) but had probably only 50 HRS TTRW.
If you applied all the above cruelties to a type-certified aircraft, I am sure it will equally fall out of the sky. So I guess we have to look elsewhere to see whether the CH-7, or the CH-77 for that matter, is a safe kit helicopter.
The accident report is really detailed and excellent! In many countries, a crashed ultra-light wouldn't even justify an investigation. I am impressed!
The investigation for the 2015 accident is not yet complete; there is no report yet. But the report for the earlier 2014 (VH-SWQ) accident confronts the reader with a real non-compliance extravaganza:
- The aircraft was heavily modified without any documentation, let alone testing of the impact of such modifications.
- It had signs of a hard landing (deformation) and no records of a related inspection or repairs.
- Self-made, non-compliant replacement parts (e.g., carb throttle support) were used for repairs.
- The attachment for the vertical stabiliser (that fell off in flight) was known to be cracked, and the manufacturer (Cicare) had advised to ground this aircraft pending the fitting of new stabiliser assy.
- Excessive tail vibration (that we now believe were caused by the already loose vertical stabiliser) were attributed to TR imbalance. The vibrations didn't get better after two attempts to balance the TR blades, and yet they continued to operate the aircraft.
On the regulatory side:
- Maintenance and repairs that were done at all, were done by non-authorised personnel, and were not documented.
- The aircraft was out of MPI at the time of the accident. Several due maintenance activities had been skipped.
- The operator didn't have an AOC, nor was the pilot commercially rated.
- The pilot didn't have a game rating.
- The pilot made contradictory statements about his fix wing flying experience (varying between 300 and 9.000 HRS) but had probably only 50 HRS TTRW.
If you applied all the above cruelties to a type-certified aircraft, I am sure it will equally fall out of the sky. So I guess we have to look elsewhere to see whether the CH-7, or the CH-77 for that matter, is a safe kit helicopter.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot and Hi
Are you saying because
That you are sure it would fall out of the sky?
If you applied all the above cruelties to a type-certified aircraft, I am sure it will equally fall out of the sky
The operator didn't have an AOC, nor was the pilot commercially rated
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I guess we have to look elsewhere to see whether the CH-7, or the CH-77 for that matter, is a safe kit helicopter.
As with most machinery H and H, they are as safe as their human intervention.
Yes, the machine in the closed report was abused, and suffered as any other machine would.
I know of a CH-7 with 1500 odd hours or working airtime, ( not a weekender) with few issues.
Dilligent maintainance and balance goes along way toward longevity.
I know of two others in excess of 300 hours in the same boat.
Integrity of the machine is not an issue.
As with most machinery H and H, they are as safe as their human intervention.
Yes, the machine in the closed report was abused, and suffered as any other machine would.
I know of a CH-7 with 1500 odd hours or working airtime, ( not a weekender) with few issues.
Dilligent maintainance and balance goes along way toward longevity.
I know of two others in excess of 300 hours in the same boat.
Integrity of the machine is not an issue.
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread - any update from current users? Would love to hear your feedback after a few years of flying?
Does anyone know if Heli-Sport was able to successfully sell the CH-77? What are their marketing techniques?
Does anyone know if Heli-Sport was able to successfully sell the CH-77? What are their marketing techniques?
