Solotrek XFV
Guest
Posts: n/a
Solotrek XFV
If you haven't read about this, it's a new personal one-person helicopter that's being developed. Details are at www.solotrek.com.
What do you think? Sounds like fun! But is it safe (or at least no more dangerous than an R22)? Any comments?
Whirly
------------------
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
What do you think? Sounds like fun! But is it safe (or at least no more dangerous than an R22)? Any comments?
Whirly
------------------
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
First question: What are the pilot actions in the event of engine failure?
(It doesn't look possible to bend down far enough to kiss one's own *rse goodbye due to the harness design).
Actually, there was a home made "personal" helicopter made in the 1960s that flew - powered by a Triumph 500 cc motorbike engine.
(It doesn't look possible to bend down far enough to kiss one's own *rse goodbye due to the harness design).
Actually, there was a home made "personal" helicopter made in the 1960s that flew - powered by a Triumph 500 cc motorbike engine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Today I sent the following email:
--------
Attn.: Mr. Michael Moshier, CEO
Millenium Jet, Inc.
Dear Mr. Moshier,
This letter serves to intrudice you to the Professional Pilots Rumor Network ("PPRuNe") and in particular the Rotorheads forum for which I act as the moderator.
Today one of our discussion members opened a thread relating to your Solo Trek XVF. I encourage you to monitor this discussion and add your comments or responses to those of others.
Sincerely,
--------
To get him involved we will need some meaningful critiques here though. Lu, Tiltrotor maybe you can be on the same side on this one? Let's hear your comments.
They certainly did a nice job on ther web site design, but I can't help but being sceptical about the whole concept.
As a pilot I have to wonder about the hubris of one who thinks he can come up with a "fail-safe" aircraft design. Surely, there is no such thing. Why should these bearings, U-joints, drive shafts, gear boxes, the c-clutch and engine be any less prone to the vagaries of Murphy's many laws than other flying machines? Oh, let's not forget fuel contamination - surely more frequent with automotive fuels.
The market would seem rather limited as well. First of all we all know that piloting a VTOL aircraft is never going to be as easy as driving a car. The abitity of maintaining good spacial orientation when moving three dimentionally has proven to be a special talent and for many turns out not to be easily learned.
There is no significant time savings when traveling at 80 mph over relatively short distances. That reduces the civilian market to the same people who buy ultra-lights.
I can't comment much on the potential military applications, but my outsider's view is that modern warfare is more and more electronic and "stand-off".
When it comes to viable personal use VTOL craft, my bet is still on the M400 ( http://www.moller.com ).
Comments anybody ???
Cheers
--------
Attn.: Mr. Michael Moshier, CEO
Millenium Jet, Inc.
Dear Mr. Moshier,
This letter serves to intrudice you to the Professional Pilots Rumor Network ("PPRuNe") and in particular the Rotorheads forum for which I act as the moderator.
Today one of our discussion members opened a thread relating to your Solo Trek XVF. I encourage you to monitor this discussion and add your comments or responses to those of others.
Sincerely,
--------
To get him involved we will need some meaningful critiques here though. Lu, Tiltrotor maybe you can be on the same side on this one? Let's hear your comments.
They certainly did a nice job on ther web site design, but I can't help but being sceptical about the whole concept.
As a pilot I have to wonder about the hubris of one who thinks he can come up with a "fail-safe" aircraft design. Surely, there is no such thing. Why should these bearings, U-joints, drive shafts, gear boxes, the c-clutch and engine be any less prone to the vagaries of Murphy's many laws than other flying machines? Oh, let's not forget fuel contamination - surely more frequent with automotive fuels.
The market would seem rather limited as well. First of all we all know that piloting a VTOL aircraft is never going to be as easy as driving a car. The abitity of maintaining good spacial orientation when moving three dimentionally has proven to be a special talent and for many turns out not to be easily learned.
There is no significant time savings when traveling at 80 mph over relatively short distances. That reduces the civilian market to the same people who buy ultra-lights.
I can't comment much on the potential military applications, but my outsider's view is that modern warfare is more and more electronic and "stand-off".
When it comes to viable personal use VTOL craft, my bet is still on the M400 ( http://www.moller.com ).
Comments anybody ???
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
helidrvr,
I like the sound of the M400. Hadn't heard about that one before.
I hope Mr Moshier replies; this could be an interesting discussion, though I probably don't really understand the technical details well enough to join in.
Whirly
------------------
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
[This message has been edited by Whirlybird* (edited 15 October 2000).]
I like the sound of the M400. Hadn't heard about that one before.
I hope Mr Moshier replies; this could be an interesting discussion, though I probably don't really understand the technical details well enough to join in.
Whirly
------------------
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
[This message has been edited by Whirlybird* (edited 15 October 2000).]
