This is pretty sweet!
Originally Posted by gulliBell
Why might it need a clutch if it has a turboshaft engine?
Originally Posted by krypton_john
It's probably a fixed spool turbine so the output shaft is the same as the compressor...
I see the same idea has been used elsewhere: https://www.laehelicopterscyprus.com/piranha.html
It seems like pretty dodgy ground really, as these units are not designed as propulsion devices and are not designed or certified as such. Here is an extract from the FAA TSO qualification standards:
The standards of TSO C77b apply to gas turbine engines intended to provide auxiliary electrical, pneumatic, or mechanical power to support airplane systems operations. These standards do not apply to gas turbine engines intended for aircraft propulsion nor do they address the integration of the APU into the design of the airplane.
Originally Posted by 212man
It seems like pretty dodgy ground really, as these units are not designed as propulsion devices and are not designed or certified as such. Here is an extract from the FAA TSO qualification standards:
The FAA used to require systems like PBA on the Sikorsky 76....but no longer do.
Just because the FAA requires something does not mean they are on top of things....it just shows what the current regulation requires.
I remember when Soloy began to add Turbine Engines to Hillers and General Aviation Airplanes....that caused the FAA some discomfort but we see how that turned out.
Technology moves forward.....Certification Authorities always lag behind technological advances.
A good example is the FAA and helicopter fly by wire designs....industry had the engineering to move forward and the FAA did not have the equal expertise to craft the certification requirements and the industry had to teach the FAA what it needed to know to accomplish that.
Bottom line....it is still a Robbie that can carry a hundred kilo's of useful load due to the lighter engine.
Just because the FAA requires something does not mean they are on top of things....it just shows what the current regulation requires.
I remember when Soloy began to add Turbine Engines to Hillers and General Aviation Airplanes....that caused the FAA some discomfort but we see how that turned out.
Technology moves forward.....Certification Authorities always lag behind technological advances.
A good example is the FAA and helicopter fly by wire designs....industry had the engineering to move forward and the FAA did not have the equal expertise to craft the certification requirements and the industry had to teach the FAA what it needed to know to accomplish that.
Bottom line....it is still a Robbie that can carry a hundred kilo's of useful load due to the lighter engine.
The FAA used to require systems like PBA on the Sikorsky 76....but no longer do.
Technology moves forward.....Certification Authorities always lag behind technological advances
Quoting from an earlier post by Bell Ringer......
Perhaps in time it be certified for its new use.
As to PBA....plenty of discussion about that another thread.
That's why they fit into experimental or restricted use categories.
As to PBA....plenty of discussion about that another thread.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APU powered experimental helicopters have been around for a long time: Rotorway JetExec
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,095
Likes: 0
Received 31 Likes
on
20 Posts
a Robbie that can carry a hundred kilo's of useful load due to the lighter engine
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
So, now those porky Murricans can train in this instead of the R44 Cadet.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
Yeah, spend the money putting a Hughes/ Schweizer 300 rotor head on it, or even a (barrff!) Enstrom head.
