Mini 500 Turbine Conversion A BIG SUCCESS.
Dennis Chitwood
We have solved the solution to making the T62-2A1, which is a
constant speed turbine, able to have pilot controlable rpm. This
allows us to start the turbine at 66% rpm, then engage the clutch
(which works flawlessly), and then drive the rpm up to 100%. It
works perfectly. We have no egt's over 850. There will be a movie
of today's startup on www.stittind.com . You will see some shaking
after rotor engagement, but that is due to the fact that the craft is
brand new and has never had the blades balanced. The shaking almost
dissapears at 100% rpm, and you will see Rick Stitt come under my
rotor disk to mark the blades for alignment. The helicopter is well
secured to the tarmack by two straps from the belly tiedowns to an
aircraft tiedown. If you look close you will see that I lifted the
skids off about 1/2 inch to cone the blades up for proper marking.
Pretty cool, huh?
Dennis Chitwood
N500XT
Serial # 5230T
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
I was reading on your web site about the rotary engine project. Why
did you abandon it?
Also, you should also be aware that the controller for the T62 has a
problem with aircraft radio and will shut down the engine unexpectedly
(flame out).
Dennis H.
rock...@bumblebees.net (Dennis Chitwood) wrote:
> We have solved the solution to making the T62-2A1, which is a
> constant speed turbine, able to have pilot controlable rpm. This
> allows us to start the turbine at 66% rpm, then engage the clutch
> (which works flawlessly), and then drive the rpm up to 100%.
Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
"A Recession is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A Depression is when YOU are out of work.
A Recovery is when all the H1-B's are out of work."
(An H-1B is someone who is brought into the USA to replace
American workers at a fraction of the wage.)
Dennis Chitwood
> I was reading on your web site about the rotary engine project. Why
> did you abandon it?
>
>> >
The Rotary project was abandoned due to overwhelming turbine interest.
Also, you should also be aware that the controller for the T62 has a
> problem with aircraft radio and will shut down the engine unexpectedly
> (flame out).
We use a manual controller for that reason.
Dennis Chitwood
> We use a manual controller for that reason.
OOps...musta been sleepy... I meant to say "mechanical" controller.
Rick engineered a gear-driven "accessory pad" that drives off the
turbine gearbox.
Johnny Canuck
Well Dennis you and your team deserve to be thoroughly
congratulated for your efforts and results.
If you ever have a chance to offer your video clips as
MPEGs as well as Windows Media then I'd be at your
site like a dirty shirt having a peek.
Your comments and progress are a welcome relief to the usual
running commentary on the - "YOU KNOW WHAT"
Please stay in touch with the group as I'm sure that there are
others like me who are interested in your progress.
Good luck and safe flying from a lurker, and armchair pilot.
Steve Waltner
> MPEGs as well as Windows Media then I'd be at your
> site like a dirty shirt having a peek.
One other comment on the videos besides another person saying "Drop the
WMV file format." is please go easy on the video effects. Your videos
are pretty difficult to see what's going on with all the transition
effects. There's a reason that Star Wars is the only movie that uses
scene wipes instead of immediate cuts or cross-disolves. Double the
amount of video between transitions and go to a simple crss-dissolve
for a much more effecting video. Great work on the system engineering
that you have completed!
Steve
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
I thought that sounded kinda strange. So is it like a centrifucal
controller or something? If you can get it to work, that's really a
pretty good way to go. So can I assume that the collective throttle
control mechanically works the governor limits so that you can
manually change the speed of the engine. Is that true.
Dennis H.
rock...@bumblebees.net (Dennis Chitwood) wrote:
Dennis Hawkins
Dennis Chitwood
controlled by momentary switches mounted on the end of the collective
(Ray Allen electronics). Exactly how we have servos set up was
deduced from testing various permutations, not from any turbine
manual. It works like a (literally) million bucks.
Dennis Chitwood
Dennis Chitwood
I should make it clear that my Mini 500 has been completly
de-Fettered. The only things that haven't been reengineered are the
control system (which was Cicare's anyway) and the skin (which was
copyed from a Hughes). Under the skin, even Fetters wouldn't
recognize it.
Dennis Chitwood
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
Perhaps you should give it a different body style and market it as
something besides a mini-500. That way, you lose the stigma.
Dennis H.
rock...@bumblebees.net (Dennis Chitwood) wrote:
> I should make it clear that my Mini 500 has been completly
> de-Fettered. The only things that haven't been reengineered are the
> control system (which was Cicare's anyway) and the skin (which was
> copyed from a Hughes). Under the skin, even Fetters wouldn't
> recognize it.
> Dennis Chitwood
Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
And you also reduce the chance of unscrupulous people trying to pass
off an unmodified mini-500 for a Chitwood-500.
DH
Clayton Ashley
Dennis is getting confused between the T62-32 and your (and mine)
T62-t2A1.
The -32 has a electromechanical fuel controler and the -2A1 has a
mechanical. This is one of the reasons I went with the -2A1 for my
Helicycle. The -32 in the Jet Exec has had the radio interference
problems in a few examples.
Clayton
Dennis Fetters
Dear Mr. Chitwood,
Now that you have seen fit to bring me into the conversation, I'll join in.
First, let's clear up your comment that it has been so called
de-Fettered. It has my up to date transmission, rotorhead, tailrotor,
Sprague clutch and blades, the heart of any helicopter? Sure it dose. So
really what have you done compared to me? Took someone else's helicopter
design and someone else's engine and put them together, making changes
so they would fit. That don't make you a helicopter designer, it makes
you a scavenger. If you want to toot your own horn then start with your
own design, not someone else's 99%.
Your comments that I copied Cicare and Hughes are not the full story,
and misleading. I have posted here the facts behind the Cicare control
system. If you choose not to believe them then that's your business. If
you have proof to dispute the facts I have posted, please post them here.
As for me copings the looks from Hughes, it wouldn't be much of a
replica of a M-500 if I didn't! That was the goal, to make a Kit
helicopter that looked like an M-500, so I guess I did a good job making
it. Besides, How many kit aircraft are replicas of full sized? Many,
many, and I'm sure they had the same goal in mind. Sure, I could have
came up with my own unique look and design, but I didn't because I
wanted to make an M-500 look alike.
Now, I'm going to make a prediction. I know it's going to heat you all
up, and you're going to go nuts with what I have to say. It's only human
for you to do so.......
I predict that you will someday fly your APU powered Mini-500. That is
not a difficult thing to accomplish, since you are using a helicopter
design that has already proven to fly, and you are using an engine that
has already powered that same design of helicopter. How you hook it into
the helicopter is likely different then how others have already done,
and your system may be better, maybe the best for all we know. Maybe
even correct and function flawlessly! Good for you if it dose.
Now for your future: You will go out there and manage to fly your APU
powered Mini-500. You will come here to this newsgroup and declare
victory, and you have accomplished what none could before. Then you will
rejoice in all the good wishes and congratulations forthcoming. After
you come down from the clouds, then you will go out there and fly the
beast some more. You will make a few adjustments, even some
modifications, and fly some more.
After about 20 to 60 hours, you will see some changes in the APU. It's
not acting like it did before, but you will tell everyone here that
there is no problem, and all is perfect, and your still the hero. You
will start to check and second guess everything, maybe even put another
APU on, just in case you had a bad engine. You will have the same
problems again, and now you will start looking at making changes to the
APU to try and overcome the problems, just as others have, and are doing
now.
It will be around this point where your buddy Rick Stitt will dump you
and start looking for a new sugar daddy, because you won't be profitable
to him when you stop paying him, or he no longer sees a buck to make off
your efforts. Soon, you won't be posting here about your progress, and
it will be forgotten about, just like all the others before you that
jumped aboard that same leaky boat, the APU.
There you go. That is the road before you. I know you don't believe it,
can't believe it, and will take tremendous offense, but there it is like
it or not. You may have the money, the heart, the willpower and burning
desire to make it happen, but you are up against two obstacles that will
prevent you from succeeding. You are dealing with Rick Stitt, and you
are using an engine not capable of doing the job.
OK, let me have it. Go on the defensive and call me all sorts of names.
But, I hope that you will print this email and post it on your wall at
home, and remember the day it comes true. Good luck, be safe and I hope
you are not taken for to much money.
Dennis Chitwood
> Dennis is getting confused between the T62-32 and your (and mine)
> T62-t2A1.
>
Yes..., but I understand that the -32 can will fit our 2A1. I haven't
tried it. I don't think I'll need the extra hp and wouldn't like the
increased burn rate in my small ship. Geez...maybe I should go by a
different name, like my aka Rocketman; being a "Dennis" in a mini 500
could be dangerous (and I don't mean flyin'). I don't want to be
lookin' over my shoulder...I've got gauges to consider.
Rocketman
Murphy's law
De Javu for u?
n4mwd.don...@amsat.org
> I should make it clear that my Mini 500 has been completly
> de-Fettered. The only things that haven't been reengineered are the
> control system (which was Cicare's anyway) and the skin (which was
> copyed from a Hughes). Under the skin, even Fetters wouldn't
> recognize it.
> Dennis Chitwood
I can't help but have bad feelings about the Cicare control system. I
simply don't think its a good design. Mr. Fetters apparently spent a
lot of time, money and energy trying to make cicare's design safe and
reliable. Based on the posts here, it appears that he failed. I
personally won't get into a helicopter that uses cicare's control
system.
There have been posts here that say that cicare's design was
perfection, but there have been others that have pointed out that he
only built prototypes and not production helicopters. There is a big
difference.
As such, I would hope that redesigning the control system for the
Chitwood-500 would be the next task on the list.
As far as Mr. Fetter's comments about the T-62, I'm no turbine expert,
but whenever you essentially have a gyroscope spinning at 90K RPM, and
then you try to move it, you may have some difficulty. Nevertheless,
I hope that the T-62 turbine project proves to be a success. However,
like I've said before, the wankel rotary is a better choice.
Just my opinion.
Dennis H. (Its like "Dennis" soup here all of a sudden)
Dennis Chitwood
> > rock...@bumblebees.net (Dennis Chitwood) wrote in message news:<8aaaaf7b.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>We use two servos to control the turbine's rpm. The servos are
> >>controlled by momentary switches mounted on the end of the collective
> >>(Ray Allen electronics). Exactly how we have servos set up was
> >>deduced from testing various permutations, not from any turbine
> >>manual. It works like a (literally) million bucks.
> >>Dennis Chitwood
> >
> >
> > I should make it clear that my Mini 500 has been completly
> > de-Fettered. The only things that haven't been reengineered are the
> > control system (which was Cicare's anyway) and the skin (which was
> > copyed from a Hughes). Under the skin, even Fetters wouldn't
> > recognize it.
> > Dennis Chitwood
>
>
> Dear Mr. Chitwood,
>
> Now that you have seen fit to bring me into the conversation, I'll join in.
>
> First, let's clear up your comment that it has been so called
> de-Fettered. It has my up to date transmission, rotorhead, tailrotor,
> Sprague clutch and blades, the heart of any helicopter? Sure it dose. So
> really what have you done compared to me? Took someone else's helicopter
> design and someone else's engine and put them together, making changes
> so they would fit. That don't make you a helicopter designer, it makes
> you a scavenger. If you want to toot your own horn then start with your
> own design, not someone else's 99%.
Geez, I never claimed to be a helicopter designer... I'm just a guy
that loved the Hughes 500, but figured maybe I could afford a Mini-500
and fix it. I fully intended, and am proud to be, a "scavenger" in
this case. I had an otherwise worthless machine that was at best a
cool arcade game, and now I have a machine that I feel safe to fly. I
hope other guys that have minis realize that there is still hope for
their original dreams.
> Your comments that I copied Cicare and Hughes are not the full story,
> and misleading. I have posted here the facts behind the Cicare control
> system. If you choose not to believe them then that's your business. If
> you have proof to dispute the facts I have posted, please post them here.
I'm really not as stupid as I look.
Well, I hope you're wrong about the engine; you were certainly wrong
to choose the Rotax. I just want to fly my helicopter and have some
fun.
Hennie Roets
This is not a new design by Mr Sicare or by Mr Fetters.
Regards
Hennie Roets
Dennis Fetters
Hi Hennie.
To be correct, it's nothing like that on an Enstrom. But it is very
similar to the one found in the Kaman helicopters, except the Kaman
control system activates ailerons attached to the rotors, while our
system directly controls the blades.
mr.g...@gmail.com
Thanks,
Patrick G.
Fort Lauderdale, FL
386-882-2603