Another Industrial Turbine

[cbergen]

This is our 4th Industrial Turbine, to be picked up by the customer in a week or two.

As we continue flight testing, I'll add more pics, including those with weight on board.


http://www.helifreak.com/album_mod/upload/9ef4a41744b330bb71f6be11509bc28b.jpg

http://www.helifreak.com/album_mod/upload/133bef72a3f520369f76e96d4570664f.jpg

http://www.helifreak.com/album_mod/upload/94b061dae3092fdc4670a9340c0cbb0c.jpg

http://www.helifreak.com/album_mod/upload/55e488d328ba4a9a8e9ad4ab8cccaab1.jpg

Big 32 oz tanks, 810 V-Blades, HD tail gearbox, Double clutch and Double main gear, capable of up to 20-25 Lbs, Prebuilt and test flown.

Frames are 1/8th" thick G10, Landing gear doubled up to handle the weight.

And of course, the exceptional Wren MW 54 Heli Turbine Engine!

[chopper jockey]

It looks quite sturdy Chris. Does it have a 12mm main shaft? and will it be flying at an AMA run event? If so I can see why it still has a clutch :)

[cbergen]

It uses the same hollow, hardened main shaft that we use in the Industrial Twin, which is capable of carrying the same payload, and has done so for many years.

This is geared more towards the Industrial Market, where users might want to approach the machine while the engine is running to ensure everything is satisfactory, make minor adjustments, etc.

Something not possible with YOUR conversions!! :lol:

[Gary Travis]

I have one of the industrial twin Observers at my home that belongs to a freind, the lifting capability is exellent as well as the handling. I have taken it up with a Sony FX 1 and some other electronic equipment on board with a total weight of 37 1/2 lbs. No problem with the 810 V's. Combine that with carrying just over 3 ltres of fuel it makes for an exellent platform.
Gary

[rkeith2]

Hey Gary - That Avatar looks awefully familiar :wink:

Loaded Helicam gear this weekend and was playing while some local Sheriff guys were there.

Did a fast climbout and heard three at the same time in perfect harmony say ...

You guessed it "Holy $hit"

fun fun fun

[Gary Travis]

That is has become the normal response for sure. Give me a call when you can as I will be shooting in your area next weekend , maybe you can lend a hand or two!!
Gary

[chopper jockey]

It uses the same hollow, hardened main shaft that we use in the Industrial Twin, which is capable of carrying the same payload, and has done so for many years.

This is geared more towards the Industrial Market, where users might want to approach the machine while the engine is running to ensure everything is satisfactory, make minor adjustments, etc.

Something not possible with YOUR conversions!! :lol:


Go on then, what minor adjustments need to be made when the engine has to be running? And you didn`t answer my first question? :)

[rkeith2]

I like to dynamically correct the blade balance as well as look at the HDT sometimes off the extension before removing it and proceeding to flight.

Saves another shutdown and start up; especially when I put the tape on the wrong blade or flybar paddle -

Man I hate when I do that :glasses:

[cbergen]

Personally, I tend to do a lot of first test flights on new machines, so I look for things like fuel leaks (haven't found one yet!!) jittery servos, hook up the HDT to verify RPM, temp, track rotor blades, adjust tail setups,etc, etc.

And I can do all of this with ONE startup, max of two if I have to refuel, IF!!

The mainshaft is 10mm, as I said the same one used in the other Industrial birds and the same one used the Aerobatic Intrepid Turbine!! http://www.helifreak.com/viewtopic.php?t=19610

I'm curious though, Why is someone who is also "in the business" giving me $hit about how or why MY helicopter has or doesn't have a specific design? Are you interested in buying one??

[chopper jockey]

not giving you $hit mate. I politely said it looks sturdy and wanted to know about the main shaft. You side stepped my question so I asked it again. I'm not interested in buying one though, like you said I'm also in the business and I have 12 mm shafts and I find a clutch is not necessary. No offence intended :)

[cbergen]

No sidestepping was intended, only oversight on my part.

Your point about a clutch is well known, but since you seem to want to have the same "discussion" about it everytime there is anything concerning MY Turbine helicopter makes you look like a troll in my book. Drop it.

I live and fly here in the states, unlike you, therefore every single one of MY production IC helicopters WILL have a clutch. I deem it necessary, and I MANUFACTURE the helicopter. If you don't like it, TOO BAD!! Manufacture your own, sell em here, if you can, leave me out your own personal vendettas.


:D :D

[chopper jockey]

No sidestepping was intended, only oversight on my part.

Your point about a clutch is well known, but since you seem to want to have the same "discussion" about it everytime there is anything concerning MY Turbine helicopter makes you look like a troll in my book. Drop it.

I live and fly here in the states, unlike you, therefore every single one of MY production IC helicopters WILL have a clutch. I deem it necessary, and I MANUFACTURE the helicopter. If you don't like it, TOO BAD!! Manufacture your own, sell em here, if you can, leave me out your own personal vendettas.


:D :D

You are coming on a bit strong there Chris, no need for it, I get your message. I think another oversight on your post. IC helicopters obviously need a clutch. :roll:

[cbergen]

Not strong, yet. You should have seen the reply I deleted! :glasses2:

Here's a question, isn't a Turbine considered internal combustion??

:WOW

[Gary Travis]

Ahh the clutch issue continues, I probably don't want to get into this one but for my observations the issue of a clutch on these machines has become a constant issue.
As Chris has stated many times it is his company and he is the manufacterer his turbine has the clutch system which has proven itself well in the Bergen turbines. Since the start I have not heard of anyone haveing issues with it being there. Also in the US most flyers do attend AMA events and follow the safety guidlines to a t. I realize that in the UK as well as other countries the moving blades on startup are not an issue HERE IN THE US IT IS. Also I would agree with Chris in that we can get near the helicopter and make information checks without the blades moving. When I did the prototype this was a great advantage to bee able to do this. Botom line is Let Chris build his product the way he wants and others can build theres the way they want. The clutch subject has been brought up so many times and discussed that it is a moot issue. and it will not change here in the US nor do I think it needs to. Lets move along to some positive dicussions.
Gary

[chopper jockey]

Not strong, yet. You should have seen the reply I deleted! :glasses2:

Here's a question, isn't a Turbine considered internal combustion??

:WOW

I do like to politely answer questions I've been asked. :) :)

see here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/internal%20combustion%20engine

But I conceed your point. :wink:

[cbergen]

You must have used an OLD dictionary, try this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal-combustion_engine

[Gary Travis]

Touche'!!!!!!!
Gary

[chopper jockey]

:D :oops: nice one :D

[v22chap]

Dang ,,,learn something new every day. :lolol

[rkeith2]

:smokin:

[wolfdad]

Chris,
As you know, I am playing some "catch-up" in back-reading posts. This "heavy-lifter" appears, once again to be an incredible machine.

And, what Gary says is even more incredible......37.5 lbs. full-up weight is as heavy as my BK, which is some 8' 4" long and I am flying 875mm OF blades on it (all 4 of them).

Idle chit-chat so far and, I am NOT going to get into the clutch/not clutched discussion. All I can say about that is that I fly a Bergen...'nuff said.

Chris, my question to you, after looking at the pics is whether or not you have tried the 32 ounce bottles on this monster? I note that you have 20 ounce bottles mounted in the pictures and, knowing you, I am sure they give you more than adequate flight time, however, I am curious as to whether or not you've tried the larger bottles and, if so, what kind of flight times you have seen. With the 4 blade head, the rules of thumb are, for the same diameter disk, not quite twice the lift, but over twice the power requirement and over twice the torque to compensate for, therefore I went to the larger bottles and during an extended hover check, found that I was dry at about the 14 plus minute point (flame out). I downgraded that figure by 20% for full manuevering flight (or about 3 minutes) and that's where I set my safety point (and transmitter timer)....at the 11 minute mark. The scale profile has to be flown in 9 minutes or less, so I figure I am at a really nice safety margin. BTW, my rules of thumb, posted above, are my own (with the kindly assistance of Peter Wales) and are not to be construed as "hard" facts.

Back to the question at hand, Chris....have you tried the larger bottles and, if so, what flight time increase did you see?
Doc

[Danyboy]

I would also be interestend on the topic of endurance...

I've found, that my Wren 54 drinks just above 1litre per 9 minutes of hovering...

Is that much or not compared to others?

Not that I would really care, even if I bought from official and expensive source at the airport, I am quite cheaper in operation than equal gassers... ;)

And on second thought...
On the pictures, I see the exact same can for butan as I have installed. The previous owner said though, that they had problems to get the engine started with that can.
Until now, I suspected this was because they were only able to charge it up with gas only, no liquid gas was able to be transferred into that can, and therefore, the available gas volume was not enough for starting.
But then again, from the pictures above, I do not see a way to connect a gas bottle directly to that can so that liquid can be transferred.
IF you charge only gaseous gas (what a word... ;) ) into that can, can you please tell me what the respective used figures are for starter RPMIGN and RPMSTOGA as well as GLOW POWER?
IF you do charge liquid gas, how do you make sure only gaseous gas arrives at the turbine? Since I do only see a T-fitting, I suppose from one side the liquid gas arrives from charging, and from the other side, gas is being supplied to the engine. After charging, a small part of the hose might be filled with liquid gas. Does that evaporate and arrive as gas at the turbine or are there other measures to be taken?
I *really* look forward to be able to set the heli in the middle of the field, walk away from it and then initiate startup, without the need for handling gas bottles, hoses, fire extinguisher and transmitter near a running engine...

Cheers,

Daniel

[chopper jockey]

Daniel,

Is it cold where you fly? Try keeping the gas warm untill ready to start or better still, fit a kero start!

[wolfdad]

Daniel,
In addition to what CJ recommends, keep your gas container in an upright position during starts. Whatever portion of the gas that remains in liquid form will settle to the bottom, ensuring that only gas is delivered to the turbine.

Kero-start, Phil??? When the turbine manufacturer's (other than Jetcat) install as standard and warrant the engine with the kero-start installed, is when I will use and recommend that option. I also understand (not confirmed) that Jetcat has experienced some problems with their kero-start system.
Doc

[chopper jockey]

Hi Doc,

The Jetcat system had some problems on the first batch. It appears to be cured now. The slight problem was not helped by the fact the Jetcat system runs on a 7.2v battery, which, at that low a voltage requires about 30 amps to start. I use an Orbit system, which, based on 12 volts, requires much less current and never had a problem on over 100 starts so far and yes, The Orbit Kero start for the Wren system is only recomended after your Wren is out of warrenty. :)