- Listed: November 9, 2010 3:07 am
- Expires: This ad has expired
First to bid on this helicopter you have to have at list 10 positive feedback, or email me before biding otherwise we will remove your bid also $2000 deposit is required within two hours after auction ends rest of the money in cash or bank cashiers check with in one week after end of the auction, my suggestion is get your financing before you bid.
This is Hughes 269A helicopter model TH55A it is my personal helicopter I used to have helicopter flying business Th55 is what I decided to keep,I chose Hughes for its great flying characteristics and this is perhaps most romantic of light utility observation helicopters, Jacques Cousteau had it on a board and now you can see it on Whale Wars, just by chance mine has exactly the same paint scheme.Fact is that if you buy new training helicopter right now you will lose almost half of its value in few years Hughes will keep value there is no danger in investing money in highly depreciated item like new heli or car. Two seat dual controls version made to teach to fly our finest pilots I like fact that controls are made to military standards and all switches are in a right place I like military style mesh seats instead grand ma chair, makes heli looking lean sporty inside and out.And that is how it fly best all around helicopter in this price range with out Robinson dangerous problems, as you know Schweitzer still makes license copies this helicopter under 300 name so new pats are available also there is lots of used parts.It has mid time components, this Helicopter is modified to have best possible engine for a helicopter application (other than turbine) it had RX7 B3 Rotary engine which makes for safer and more power flying.Conversion was done professional way it looks as if was made by factory, no back yard mechanics ,what helicopter gained is fuel injected engine with double fuel pump ,computer controlled engine which is impossible to size when on high power stings( as in take of ) when piston engine is most prone to failure also this modification allows you if you need more power install turbo charger.Please read following article about why rotary engine is superior to piston carburetor engine
Why the 13B Rotary Engine?
One of the things that bothered me most about
building (or owning) an aircraft was the staggering cost of the engine and
engine parts. I bought my 193 hp Jeep, with the entire body and extras and every
was already put together, for $20,000. The cost of a factory new 180 hp aircraft
engine is about $24,000 and it doesn’t even come with spark plugs (8x$17), an
alternator, control cables, wiring, intake ducts, air filter, oil filter, oil,
oil cooler or starter, AND you have to install it your self. A sodium exhaust
valve commonly found in trucks costs $12. The same valve in an aircraft, made of
the same material but of a slightly different shape, costs over $200. And these
engines really are not that reliable. They are constantly at the limits of their
structural tolerance. That is why there are so many recalls and structural
failures with certified engines. Check out my page on Certified engine
Bloops, blunders, and Recalls to see examples. There really has to be a
better way. One rule, no amount of savings is worth compromised safety.
So, while on deployment to Japan, I began reading
everything I could about engines and especially auto conversions for aircraft. I
read several books: Contact! – a collection of people who have installed auto
engines in airplanes, Fuel Injection – a book about the theory and application
of fuel injection, and a book on turbocharging. I frequently went to the
websites of several companies that build or promote the use of subaru, chevy,
and assorted diesel engines. None of them even came close to measuring up to a
certified engine, they were usually too heavy, big or (especially with the
diesels) the engines just were not available and the companies claims were
doubtful. I decided that there was no way that I would use one of those engine
in my aircraft. One exception stood out, the Mazda 13B Rotary engine. The rotary
(Wankel) engine is very unique. Of the thousands of car designs on the road
today all except the Mazda RX-7 (and a handful or early low production Wankels)
use piston engines. The rotary has had a hard time of making a big impact on
auto industry. It has its strengths and weaknesses. I am thankfully amazed that
Mazda is still producing these remarkable engines. Luckily, the shortcomings of
the rotary are minimized in aircraft, while its advantages really shine.
1) The rotary’s primary strength is its excellent power to weight ratio. That
is, for a given weight the rotary will make more power than a piston engine, or
make the same amount of power at a reduced percentage of design workload and/or
it will weigh less. In a car reduced weight is good, in an airplane it is great.
Climb speed, take off distance, landing distance, and even how much fuel and
cargo that can be carried are greatly affected by engine weight. A 180 hp
normally aspirated 13B weighs about 40lb less than a 180 hp lycoming (bare
O-360). Add a PSRU and radiators and normally aspirated 13B rotary
installation will weigh about the same as a comparable certified engine.
But add a turbo charger, another rotor, or both and the rotary engines will
weigh solidly less than certified engines of comparable hp.
2) The stock 13B components (rotors, e-shaft etc.) are extremely stout and
can withstand abuses well beyond their normally aspirated power outputs. Track
racers routinely get 200+ h.p. PER ROTOR (i.e. 400 hp for a 13B or 600 hp for a
20B) using STOCK rotors and housings(turbo or superchargers used to boost the
power). Drag racers sometimes push that number up above 300 hp per rotor, again
with modified stock components. Those stock components are not likely to ever
fail in aircraft use, which would usually be less than 150 hp per rotor.
Ultimate durability of those components is very high, and replacement and
rebuild is exceptionally cheap and easy.
3) The rotary runs very smoothly. This is due in part to its famed rotary
motion instead of the back and fourth motion of pistons. But the more important
cause of the rotary’s smoothness is the LACK OF TORQUE REVERSAL. A 4 cylinder
piston engine has a portion of its cycle where it is between power pulses and
the prop is actually pushing the engine – an area of negative torque. This
happens twice each revolution and is largely responsible for some of the
prop/engine RPM limitations seen with certified engines. The rotary on the other
hand has no such torque reversal, the torque is always positive (two rotors or
larger). This is much gentler on the prop (and PSRU if installed). Another
important cause of the rotary’s smoothness are the smaller but more frequent
power pulses. A 4 cyl aircraft engine has 2 power pulses per revolution of the
prop. A 2 rotor rotary with a 2.8:1 gear drive, will have 5.6 power pulses per
rotation of the prop. Although this will make for a higher pitched engine sound,
it minimizes the amplitude of torsional vibration that is assiciated with each
power stroke. That in turn reduces the stresses on everything from the engine
mount to alternator and avionics.
4) Cost. Lets face it, the big draw of alternate engines is cost.
Unfortunately, the cost of creating a unique installation sometimes offsets the
lower price of the engine block. The rotary is not different from other auto
conversions in this regard. Proponents of aircraft engines often mention that
for the $10-$12k it took to convert an auto engine, you could install a
half-time lycoming and been flying much sooner. Or they point out that the
firewall forward kits for auto engines usually cost as much as a new Lycoming.
True on both counts, but the savings on an auto conversion comes primarily from
lower operating and maintenance costs. That half time lycoming will very likely
need a rebuild sooner rather than later, and lyc rebuilds cost $15k or more. A
rotary can be rebuilt for less than $1000, uses Mogas (or Avgas), and is
designed to be used with inexpensive ancillary components such as alternators,
starters, injectors, fuel pumps, fuel filters, turbochargers and so on. All of
those components come in versions with extensive use in auto applications with
corresponding reliability – often greater reliability than what is seen in
expensive aviation components (alternators and starters in particular). Follow
the link on the left to see my firewall forward costs.
5) Easy and inexpensive fuel injection. Fuel injection offers several
advantages over carburation. Automotive and purpose built for aviation EFI
systems are reliable and inexpensive. EFI allow for more precise control of
mixture to individual rotors (or cylinders). It automates altitude compensation
and can provide complex mixture mapping and timing advance settings. More
importantly, it virtually eliminates the risk of carb icing which takes down
more than a few planes each year. The other advantage to automotive style EFI is
high pressure/high flow fuel systems that eliminate the risk of vapor lock –
another major problem that claims victims regularly. Note that aircraft fuel
injection systems are not high pressure high flow and are thus still susceptible
to vapor lock and hot start issues.
1) The apex seals need lubrication. This would be best accomplished by a
cleanly burning oil separate from crankcase oil. Car owners would never tolerate
having to add a separate oil that was not readily available and made the car
smoke a little. Airplane owners however, are not so finicky. They are used to
having to tinker and baby their old aircraft engines. Adding a second oil to a
reservoir (or the oil to the fuel itself) is not a big detractor.
2) Due to the unusual shape of it’s combustion chamber (higher surface to
volume ratio), the rotary is about 10% worse on BSFC (fuel burn) than a piston
engine. In the automotive market, this can hurt a little. But compared to
carburated aircraft engines designed in the 1940’s, the fuel injected rotary
does pretty good. Further, because of its lack of exhaust valves, the rotary can
be excessively leaned in cruse flight without damage to the engine and thus
improve its fuel efficiency. Water cooling can significantly further reduce
cooling drag (only if great care is given to system design), bringing the MPG of
the rotary above that of its piston aircraft rivals. More importantly, by using
Mogas the cost per flight hour and/or mile traveled will invariably favor the
rotary over a piston aircraft engine. In practice, rotary powered RV’s have fuel
consumption that is about the same as those powered by certified engines.
3) A gear drive, or prop speed reduction unit (PSRU) is needed. This adds
weight and cost as well as a possible failure point. There are several bolt on
PSRU’s on the market. All are of high quality and none have had an in-flight
failure or other major issue that I am aware of.
Other Auto Conversion Considerations
1) Unique installation issues. Anytime someone creates a “one-off” firewall
forward design, issues are bound to arise which may present a significant risk
of in-flight failure. Such issues engine mounts, alternator mounts, and the
cooling, electrical and fuel systems. Although significant, these issues are
minimized with close vigilance. I estimate that somewhere around 500 hours of
flying time is enough to wring out most of those issues and thereafter the auto
conversion will not be an increased risk of systems issues. I plan to make a
separate page someday detailing some of the issues I had in my first 200 hours
of flight time, so keep checking back if it is not listed to the left.
2) Resale. There is no doubt that resale on most auto conversions will be
significantly less than the same plane with a certified engine. There is little
chance the cost savings during the build period will compensate for the lower
resale price. So if resale is likely in the first few years after the project is
finished, then a certified engine is clearly the best choice. However, as flying
hours accumulate the cost savings of the auto conversion will continue to
accumulate. At the same time the conversion will “prove itself” and the
perceived reliability will increase. At some point, the continued cost saving
and other benefit of a proven rotary installation may eventually add to the
value. Nonetheless, I intend to keep my plane indefinitely so resale is not an
issue for me.
3) Insurance. Insurance will be more difficult for an auto conversion, as
many companies will not offer it. There is an initial flight period (of varying
lengths) where insurance will be particularly difficult. When a policy is
issued, however, they do not seem to be significantly more expensive than those
for similar aircraft with certified engines. I have been self insured for my
first 200 hrs of flight but will probably obtain liability insurance in the near
future, but I do not feel that hull insurance is a good investment for most
experimental aircraft. 10-15 years of paying the insurance will usually mean
that your insurance payments will total up to the value of the aircraft. And the
most you can be reimbursed is for the stated value, but if you want your
repairman certificate back, you still have to build it again yourself
4) Additional construction time. Why do we build experimentals instead of
just buying certified aircraft? Essentially because we are willing to trade time
and effort in construction in exchange for better value, versatility, and the
experience of building. The argument is exactly the same for an auto conversion.
I estimate that my auto conversion accounted for 1 additional year in the build
process, which was 5 years total for my quick build RV-6. By spending the
additional construction time I saved money and gained a more powerful engine
that is cheaper to operate and maintain. I also know my engine and its systems
better than most RV builders know theirs.
5) Be Unique. I really enjoy showing up at a fly in, and despite the fact
that my unpainted and unfinished RV-6 would be one of the ugliest RV’s of the
lot, it would still often get the most attention because of the engine. I guess
you might say that making my own engine installation was a lot more challenging
and rewarding for me than spending an equal amount of time sanding the paint for
that show-stopping finish. Personal preference I guess.
About 4-5% of accidents are caused by structural failure of the engine. The
vast majority of aircraft accidents are caused by pilot error, fuel
mismanagement, weather, airframe structural failure, engine accessory failure,
and faulty maintenance. But still, wouldn’t it be nice to essentially eliminate
that 4-5%? When a rotary is turning at, say 7500 RPM, that is perfectly OK. That
straight e-shaft has none of the long crank throws (journals) that are such the
weak link in certified engines. At 7500 engine RPM, the rotors are only turning
at 2500 RPM – those components are not going to fail anywhere in the aircraft
operation realm. And oh, those ARE the only moving components. There are no
valves, cam shafts, lifters, lifter springs, pistons, heads, or head gaskets
that all fail occasionally in certified aircraft engines. The remaining trick is
to install all the other systems in a manner that is going the make the engine
live up to its potential in terms of reliability
As long as Mazda continues to make a rotary (and the new RENISIS engine
promises more aircraft potential than even it’s predecessors), it will gradually
become a predominant engine in aviation. If you are building an aircraft, and
care to save many tens of thousands over the life of the airplane, and would
like something that is potentially much more reliable, read Tracy Crooks
installation guide (follow the link to Real World Solutions on my links page).
It could be the best $20 you ever spent.
JMHO – David Leonard
Due to this changes and modifications helicopter all thou in a flying condition right now,helicopter will be sold as a parts only with its data plates removed and you and government authorities will be responsible to determine if helicopter is in good flying condition and if is safe to fly, we will be no responsible for any claims that we did list and sale flying condition helicopter. In current configuration it will need to be registered in Experimental category or reverted to original piston engine which will be a shame .You can inspect helicopter before auction ends and we will strongly suggest that you do ,other vise you waive any claims that you did not inspect prior to auction end .We also have professional helicopter trailer with blade box and with electrical winch which allows one person to roll helicopter on platform and than rise it and than push to transport position kind a works like elevator ,Trailer will be sold separate to wining bider for $4000 if you wold like to buy trailer separate please contact me price is $6300. There are books which comes with helicopter Maintenance Instruction and Hughes Helicopter Flight Training Manual published by Hughes Aircraft .Reason why I’m selling is: I don’t have time for recreational flying I have not used this heli for last two years all thou I start engine every couple of months,If you wonder it is garaged in purpose build Garage /Hangar next to my house, my business takes around 14 hours every day I’m 47 just have new born son, I need to focus on what I love the most it used to be flying now is my son .I hope that this helicopter will bring as much pleasure to you as it did for me it was great experience and it was great to own it will be hard to let it go.Thank you happy bidingOn Nov-08-10 at 08:18:33 PST, seller added the following information:
To address several questions posted by biders: Helicopter was registered in Experimental category it has N number it is a good flying machine ,however my intention is to sale as parts only to avoid any legal problems(in case you will kill yourself in it and your wife decide to take me to court as a manufacturer of the vechicle ),my reserve price reflects that fact .Esentialy you will get experimental helicopter but if you compare it to Rotorway , for Rotorway you have to spend $70000.00 invest two years in building it if you lucky and know what you doing, and at the end you have experimental helicopter which you are afraid to fly, that is a bottom line( I did exactly that ) .In this case we did not change any thing like push rods,controls or rotor all is there the way Hughes factory made it ,except engine and I hope I explained why rotary engine is superior to piston in helicopter application.
3077 total views, 2 so far today
Popular Ads Overall
- Air Command 447 Autogyro Gyrocopter Ultralight Gyro (21877 views)
- Beautifull New Factory Built Mosquito Xe Helicpter Sale (18150 views)
- Rotorway Scorpion 133 Helicopter (16797 views)
- Rotorway Exec 90 Helicopter - A&p Built & Maintained (13257 views)
- Rotorway Scorpion Ii Helicopter (11309 views)
- Bensen Gyrocopter (11246 views)
- 1967 Uh-1h "huey" Helicopter (military Bell 205) (9373 views)
- 1978 Hughes 300c Helicopter (9291 views)
- 'g-1 Ultralight Helicopter Partial Kit' (8672 views)
- Helicopter Aircraft Simulator, Cyclic Collective Pedals (8100 views)