Jag Helicopter (Rinke)
Fred Stewart
got a telephone call the evening before last and was told it stole the
show at Sun & Fun. The caller said it will be flying at Oshkosh. I
heard first class all the way.
Fred Stewart
http://www.mini500.com
Bob Barbanes
>Did anyone see the Jag Helicopter in Fla. produced by Joe Rinke. I
>got a telephone call the evening before last and was told it stole the
>show at Sun & Fun.
Fred, I did see Joe's new machine at SNF, and it DID "steal the show"
...primarily because "Choppertown" (oooh, I still hate the name) is pretty
dead, otherwise. Nevertheless, it would have stolen the show even if DF had
been there doing loops and rolls in a chrome Mini-500 assembled by Jim
Campbell.
I must admit, Mr. Rinke's design seems to be fairly well thought-out, at least
to this non-engineer. The rotorhead was absolutely beautiful, as were all the
castings that were externally visible. Joe certainly has the machine shop
expertise to produce a thrilling piece of work. And yes, "thrilling" is an
appropriate term. Turbine power?? EIGHT main rotor blades?!?! Multi-blade,
fenestron-type tail rotor?!?! Retractable landing gear?? Homebuilt?? Holy
smokes, this thing was over the top. It is the BD-10 of rotorcraft (and will
hopefully fair better in the market and in reality than Jim Bede's ill-fated
jet).
The JAG at SNF was more than a mockup, more than a prototype...yet was not
actually a "real" helicopter...YET. Will it fly? Joe has said that all of the
dynamic components have "flown" only on test stands. So we'll have to wait and
see how it does when everything is assembled and leaves the ground at once, for
real. I have little doubt that it will fly, and fly soon.
The cabin is W--I--D--E. Lots of room. Very nice. The instrument panel was
not quite complete, but there is plenty of room for anything you'd want to put
in.
Externally, I look for one thing: vertical fin area. Without a sufficient
amount of it, a helicopter might not fly well (and certainly won't be able to
unload the t/r in cruise flight). Personally, I wish the JAG had more vertical
fin. Not only that, but there is no horizontal stab whatsoever. Hmmm. We'll
have to see what develops during the test flights (but I have my gut feelings).
The other thing that bothered me was the complete lack of trim tabs on the m/r
blades...no method yet of tracking them relative to one another. No two blades
are exactly alike (so far, anyway), and they will all fly a little differently
as they go 'round the mast. Adjusting the pitch-change links can only help you
so far (and can compromise autorotation rpm). There is ground-track,
hover-track, and flight-track to consider, and often, the track must be
adjusted individually for each of these three phases. And with eight blades,
this could be a chore.
With those reservations, I can honestly say that the JAG is impressive. It's
an aweseme piece of work, eons beyond DF's two-seater in terms of quality of
workmanship and general appearance. Okay, question: Is a design which "looks"
good to the untrained eye really any good? Who knows. I'll tell you one
thing, it's a damn good start.
Can Joe Rinke pull it off? Having met him and talked to him, and from what I
know of him from others over the last few years, I'd say that his chances are
pretty good.
Not only would I love to see it fly at Oshkosh, I'd love to be the one flying
it!
Bob Barbanes, Test Pilot at Large
Pensacola, Florida
"The dignity of the craft is that it creates a fellowship."
Antoine de St. Exupery
Scott Asmussen
Cool report!! Where Could I find any pictures of this thing?
Scott.
Bob Barbanes <bh2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010413185949...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
Bob Barbanes
>Where Could I find any pictures of this thing?
That's easy! Check out this site: http://rinke-aerospace.com/
Scott Asmussen
I can only imagine how cool it sounds with eight blades and a turbine!!!!
What is the price going to be around??
Scott (still drooling) Asmussen
Bob Barbanes <bh2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010413230602...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
Aeroclub "Gals"
> Scott Asmussen asked about Joe Rinke's JAG helicopter:
>
> >Where Could I find any pictures of this thing?
>
There should be also some a dozen of close photos at the www.rotorway.org
forum archives.
Cheers,
Alex
http://galsaero.al.ru
GALS Airclub
Moscow
Steve Waltner
Asmussen" <asmu...@home.com> wrote:
> What is the price going to be around??
I heard the price was going to be $125,000, which seems awefully low to me
since that included the engine. We'll have to see what the final pricing
is when it comes to market.
Bob Barbanes
>I heard the price was going to be $125,000, which seems awefully low to me
>since that included the engine. We'll have to see what the final pricing
>is when it comes to market.
Kitbuilders are not generally known for their accurate pricing speculation.
But I would imagine that Joe Rinke has a fair idea of what it will cost to
produce X-number of units. The variable will be, I guess, increased
development costs as the project starts flying (see: CarterCopter).
The engine situation is interesting. Joe says that he has around 100 of those
old, ex-military Allison 250 C-18 engines overhauled and ready-to-go. I'm sure
they were procured VERY cheaply and would not be certifiable in any case, so
did not have to be sent out to Airwork or whoever does Allison engine overhauls
these days.
So yes, the first 100 of Joe's JAG's could conceiveably be sold for the price
quoted.
The Allison 250 is a wonderful little jewel, as we all know. If you can keep
from hot-starting it, don't over-temp it in flight, give it a proper cool-down
prior to shut-down and don't feed sand directly into the compressor, it should
last forever. The accessories are what could really bite you. The Bendix or
CECO fuel controls are not exactly Marvel MA-4 or Bing carburetors. Neither is
the governor. They must be overhauled/repaired by real experts in rooms that
make computer chip manufacturing plants look like Pancho Barnes' desert bar
(after the fire). And I can only imagine what it will cost to overhaul one of
those starter/generators, even IF you could find a non-certified shop that
would be willing to touch one.
Still...it's tantalizing.
Let's wish Joe Rinke luck. I get a good vibe from him, for whatever that's
worth. I mean, we've all seen hucksters come and go in this business. Rinke
is definitely NOT one of them. If this project of his fails, it won't be
because he's some flim-flam man foisting a shoddy product on us (now THERE are
some words you wouldn't want to eat later). There is a demand for small,
affordable helicopters...always has been. In a way, I don't see how this
project could fail.
As I looked at the JAG helicopter and its gorgeous castings and machine work,
and that wonderful little turbine engine, I thought about what Art Young or
Stan Hiller or even old Igor would've thought, if they'd seen something like
this back in the 1940's.
Bob -the optimist- Barbanes
Micbloo
>> >Where Could I find any pictures of this thing?
http://rinke-aerospace.com/info.%20Page.htm
VERY COOL looking ship!!!
Good luck!!
Gerard
Neil Fraser
many choices of main rotor blade qty.
Does this version of the 250 need the mini OH at 1750 hrs ?. any ideas what
the average OH cost are ?.
I'm sure that most private owners would get a few years use before they hit
the first overhaul.
But it certainly looks like a real helicopter .
Best of luck to him sounds like he is doing all the right things.
Neil
"Bob Barbanes" <bh2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010414103238...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
Bob Barbanes
>Does this version of the 250 need the mini OH at 1750 hrs ?. any ideas what
>the average OH cost are ?.
As installed in an "experimental" aircraft, it is my understanding that the
overhaul periods do NOT apply. Like a "decertified" Lycoming or Continental
piston engine, you could theoretically run the engine "on condition" until it
fails.
But yes, even adhering to Allison's overhaul schedule, most builders could
ostensibly fly for years and years and years before hitting the first required
inspections/overhauls.
It is very curious and noteworthy that Joe Rinke offers an optional and
adjustable number of main rotor and tail rotor blade configurations. Of
course, the more blades you have, the more bearings and PC links you have. And
as I mentioned, blade tracking is more complicated. But think about how quiet
an EIGHT-bladed rotor would be in a small helicopter! And think about how the
cyclic might feel as opposed to a three-blade system! I'm THERE, baby.
Bob -was jaded, now not- Barbanes
FLD51@remove_this_spamblock
wrote:
>Seems like there are quite a few options like skid or wheeled gear , and
>many choices of main rotor blade qty.
>Does this version of the 250 need the mini OH at 1750 hrs ?. any ideas what
>the average OH cost are ?.
Arizona Rotorcraft at falcon field/mesa, az, was quoting $75-150K for
a hot section if memory serves, including a test cell run on
completion, on c-20s. but that was about four years ago and they were
bought up by someone last year. in any event, it's expensive. is
rinke using the pickled -c18s that were surplussed a couple years ago?
also, does the $135K price include the engine? some of the stuff i
read implies that it's $135 plus the engine.
>I'm sure that most private owners would get a few years use before they hit
>the first overhaul.
>But it certainly looks like a real helicopter .
>Best of luck to him sounds like he is doing all the right things.
>
>Neil
>
ditto.
alan staats
www.flightleveldesign.com
Nick Lappos
To the newsgroup,
While I am impressed with the web site, and with lots of the assertions made,
here is one red flag that came up, indicating some snake oil is being bottled
up there in JAG helicopter land.
The engine stuff he is publishing is flakey, and I only hope his helicopter
sense is better. The small single shaft turbine he describes (I've repeated
it below) is mostly mythological, at least as far as his fuel consumption
statements, so I worry about the rest (which otherwise certainly seems to have
the right attitude).
Problem #1 - That small single shaft engine will burn at least 0.6 pounds per
hour for each horsepower, so at 75% of its claimed 330 HP it will burn about
148 pounds (23 gallons per hour). The claimed 3 to 5 gallons per hour is way
out in left field. [As an example, the 125 HP Aux Power Unites we use burn
about 125 pounds per hour for about 125 horsepower, for 1.0 pounds per hour
per HP]
Problem #2 - The idea that you can take a 3 bladed helo and just add 2 more
blades is way cool, but that really means that the whole shaft, transmission
and structure below are either very over built for 3 blades, or very
understrength for 5 blades! The extra thrust and moment from the 40% more
blade area are nothing to sneeze at.
Problem #3 - The fixed throttle settings on the small turbine - Idle, 75% and
full power - doesn't fit with the way we need power in a helicopter. I have
no idea how they can hover, for instance, with a fixed power output. Perhaps
they have simply not explained enough.
I wish the best for the company, because I think there have some really good
ideas (the pressurized frame is great, similar to the BIM on the older
Sikorsky blades, for example). But I do worry when I see some flakey stuff
mixed in with the good.
Nick
From the JAG web site: "We are excited, though, that we are associated with an
engineering firm, which has been in R & D for the past 10 years, working on
nothing but a turbine engine which we will use to power the JAG when all
pre-testing is completed.
This single shaft turbine is just a mere 40 lbs, but produces a whopping 330
shp and has been specifically designed to produce 2000 hours of use before
overhaul. The engine, which has a very modern and up-to-date electronics
system, monitors oil levels, oil temperatures, oil pressure, fuel pressure and
exhaust temperatures during start-up, eliminating the possibility of hot
starts. It's as simple as 1,2,3. #1, turn the main power on; #2, hit the
start switch and release, #3, sit back, relax and listen to the beautiful
spool-up as the turbine comes up to full power. This is a throttlable motor
which allows you three settings--ground idle, 75% power, and full power.
Please note that this is not an APU.
Believe it or not, this motor has been tested and only consumes three to five
gallons per hour under the heaviest loads. It also has been tested to 40
degrees negative and 120 degrees positive. The recommended fuels are
kerosene, diesel #1 and #2 fuel oil, all of which are very inexpensive when
compared with the 80 and 100 LL aircraft fuels used today."
Chuck Kemp
Snip:
(While I am impressed with the web site, and with lots of the assertions
made, here is one red flag that came up, indicating some snake oil is being
bottled up there in JAG helicopter land.)
I also worry about the reference to using Diesel fuel and straight kersosene
(yes I know Jet fuel is refined kersosene). In all of the maintenance
manuals I've read regarding the use of the fuels over Jet fuel is that you
are limited in the amount of time you can operate on that fuel. Fuel
contamination is not something you want to experience on a turbine engine,
its gets real quiet when that happens... The only way I would use any of
the alternative fuels is that is the only fuel available and I had to depart
the area because of an emergency. Too many uncontrolled factors in using
other fuels that will shorten the life of the engine, sulpher content being
one and water contaimenation is the other. Deisel engines can handle water
and fungus a lot better than a turbine fuel control can.
If they have the CECO fuel controls installed they will have to bleed the
air out of the fuel lines between the governor and fuel control or you will
experience a flame out. Not something your weekend mechanic will want to do
without some training.
With the listing of the power levels at idle, 75% and 100%, does this mean
he is using a different fuel control than the Bendix one normally used on
the 250 series of engines? I assume he will still use the N2 governor for
droop compensation and speed limiting?
Chuck Kemp
Bob Barbanes
they are developing, not the Allison 250 currently installed in the prototype.
Bob Barbanes
Chuck Kemp
Thanks for the clarification, I guess I should have checked their site out,
that explains the difference in power settings and fuel types. I was
unaware of a new engine type. If its not an APU what is it, a drone engine?
Chuck Kemp
Stubby
"Scott Asmussen" <asmu...@home.com> wrote in message
news:21OB6.4769$166....@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...