Rotorway with RR turbine

[levo]

Hi all found a clip from Loop Rotorway are going to launch a heli with a RR turbine.
csCKsW7vsXM

could be quite nippy:ok:

[Trans Lift]

Let's hope it's better than every other rotorway that has ever been made.:}

[ChopperFAN]

I have seats like that in my turbo Datsun :}

Simon

[parasite drag]

Care to elaborate Trans Lift ?

[Trans Lift]

Engine screaming to such a point that I thought it would explode any second(had to get out and relieve my hearing after 20mins, even with noise cancelling), crappy cheap feel, uncomfortable, you just wouldn't see me in one again. That is the feedback I got from anyone who I know that has been in one too!

[md 600 driver]

tans lift
are you saying the rotorway turbine screams to such it sounds it may explode
i wonder if the robbie 66 be the same ,that will be a major downsell for them

you obviousley work with rotorway to be allowed in their new ship you may want to watch what you say on forums



Engine screaming to such a point that I thought it would explode any second(had to get out and relieve my hearing after 20mins, even with noise cancelling), crappy cheap feel, uncomfortable, you just wouldn't see me in one again. That is the feedback I got from anyone who I know that has been in one too!

[s1lverback]

I did my training in the UK and the US. Generally, I didn't hear postive comments about the Rotorway or even the R22 for that matter in the US.

Two of my fellow flyers have a Rotorway (awaiting reconstruction from ground up).

My view is that 'it is what it is'...a very low budget chopper that runs on mogas and allows you to build time cheaply or just bimble about. It isn't for training or AOC.

It isn't everyone's cup of tea (I am too heavy for the Rotorway or for a R22 for that matter), but it sells because it's cheap at @£40K.

The R66 and Rotorway Turbine versions only serve one purpose IMHO, to provide an engine option for their customer base - who like the whine of a turbine.

Given the cost of the R44, I can't see the R66 being that much cheaper than an E480 and that is larger and more roomy (it has separate controls too).

A 2 seater turbine?...again, guess they like the whine..I know I do :ok:

Price will be the issue for this ship if indeed it is aimed at the turbine training market as seems to be the inference from the video, especially if "more than R22 and less than R66"...

...you get a nice 2nd hand H500 in that price range which would be far more fun to fly - my first 16 hours were in a 500D (UK) and then an older H369/A (US)...always put a smile on my face and in the US was $450/hr inclusive...cheaper than most R44 training!

[Trans Lift]

MD 600 driver,

When did I ever mention a turbine engine???????? If you took the time to read the thread, you would see that I said, "every other rotorway ever built" and since the one above is the first turbine engined machine that they have, it must be a piston that I'm talking about.

Typical of people on this forum, always jumping to conclusions!!! And no, I don't work for rotorway, I'm just a simple pilot that has flown one, once or twice, but never again. I guess I don't really have to watch what I say on this forum then, do I?

[md 600 driver]

translift
this thread is about turbine rotorway not piston rotorway that is where i got it from

[rotorfan]

s1lverback: "A 2 seater turbine?...again, guess they like the whine..I know I do
Price will be the issue for this ship if indeed it is aimed at the turbine training market as seems to be the inference from the video, especially if "more than R22 and less than R66"...

My understanding is the R22 is going out of production. If that's accurate, some ship on the lower end of the price spectrum should be able to make inroads into the basic training market. I believe that's the idea for this new Rotorway. I like the R44, but can't afford to use it as a trainer, when only 2 are usually onboard. Being a turbine allows a new pilot to begin building the almighty turbine hours right away. I didn't start flying rotary until I was 40 yrs. old, and it didn't take long for me to realize there was little hope of earning a CPL and a real job, as most require quite a bit of turbine time, something I wasn't logging in the R22 or S300. Most working helis are turbine powered, so if you can train in turbines right from the start, it would seem a more efficient use of training funds. This has the potential of being "affordable" turbine time.

As to the many comments on the quality of the Rotorways, I haven't flown one yet. I have looked them over pretty carefully several times at Oshkosh, and they look decent. Again, I've not flown one yet. Perhaps, with this new machine having certification, not just being a kit, I would expect the standards will have to be higher. I am very interested to see how this works out..

[Fly_For_Fun]

I love it when the girls on this forum get their nickers in a twist. Keep it up md 600 driver and trans lift. :ok:

I like the look of the chopper any how.

[s1lverback]

Hi Rotorfan,

If the price of the Turbine Rotorway is between R22 and R66, it will likely be closer to the R44 or R66 :\

The cost of training is somewhat constrained by the cost of purchase + cost of ownership and return an 'investor' wants on purchasing a ship and running it with a training organisation. I see this with EC120 too where in the US (due to the age & value of that machine) a flight org want $1600/hr for SFH and in the UK I pay @ £500/hr ($750) for an equally good, but lower value unit.

In the UK, the cost differential between R44 and H500 was only £50/hr ($75), so no brainer for me to start out on the H500. Then, when I saw the US cost and advantages of the FAA license I chose to complete in the US. The cost for me training in the US on a H500 is $450 (with a value of $350-400K), is the same as training in the UK on an R22 (£300).

R22 training in US is @ $300/hr...I don't think any org will give you turbine training for much less than $450 as the expensive risk as always with turbines is in Start-up and Shut Down (and for the reasons mentioned before)

This may be 'the least expensive new turbine bar none', (Norwitz, 2009), but if it will still cost more than an R22 and consequently so will the training costs.

Cost of turbine time is a problem for all of us that want to fly bigger and faster and I hope that the Rotorway does work out more econimical than other turbines to train on - just my experience, training on turbines in US and UK would indicate otherwise.

BTW. I like Rotorways and my flying buddies have said I can fly their one if I lose 60Ibs!!:}..so it looks like i'm stuck flying the E120:ok:

Good Luck!

[Trans Lift]

I know mr. 600 driver, that is why I was saying I hope it is better than the pistons!!!!!!!!!!!!!:ugh:

No knickers in a twist here, not worth it, I like them just the way they are!:ok:

[160thfan]

BJ Schramm said that rotor head could never be certified. He should know he designed it. RR said they would never sell the engine for experimental. I don't understand what Rotorway is trying to do other than just get their name out there.

[John Eacott]

There is a clip of another turbine Rotorway:

6AhROxYPBFg

[Shawn Coyle]

Costs of certification of the Rotorway would be prohibitive - even if Rotorway had a history of certifying helicopters (nothing against their technical merit, but the pitfalls of certifying are many and expensive).
Look at the recent spate of failures of Very Light Jet manufacturers - all of whom were new to getting a fixed wing aircraft certified (a much less complex task than certifying a helicopter). All failed due to lack of understanding of how certify, and in at least one case actively went against the FAA's advice on how to get certified.
Rotorway would have a huge issue getting certified and would never recoup the cost.

[birrddog]

Shawn, could you please elaborate on that? Perhaps suggest a breakdown of where the costs lie?

(And or an example of where the VLJ manufacturers went against FAA recommendations)

Thanks in advance,
Birrddog

[Shawn Coyle]

birddog:
Let's see if I can elaborate on why it's so expensive - lots of tests on the structure - it's necessary to ground run for several days at various power settings and control inputs with all structural and dynamic components instrumented for stress, strain, temperature. Then there's remote testing - necessary to do HV testing at 7,000' DA (assuming it can hover OGE at maximum weight in those conditions). Need to have support staff on the ground for that - video recording, data recording of minor things like landing gear stresses, etc. And meetings - tons of meetings with the certification authorities to make sure all the certification requirements are going to be met. And reports - tons of reports to show that the certification requirements were tested and met the rules. Total time from start of certification to finish is typically 3-4 years (it has been done in a shorter time, but only with components that have already been certified). Nearly all other certs take 3-4 years from start to finish.
As for VLJs that failed - I know of one that told the FAA that the manufacturer knew better than the FAA how to certify their machine, and that the FAA didn't know what they were doing. Not a good way to operate with the folks who have to approve what you're doing. Especially when you go on to burn through 2,500 hrs of flight time, when it should take 700 hours. They didn't help themselves when they tried to get the certification done by political pressure.
Other VLJ folks ignored problems found in flight test and pressed on trying to get a machine certified that had a major aero-elastic stability problem.
Hope that gives a flavor for why Rotorway won't be going for civil certification without a barrel full of money behind them.

[birrddog]

Thanks Shawn.