jgerard wrote:H-391B, H-395, or H-295 would be the only Helio's worth owning. LONG prop turning slow. Most people butcher the H-391 by removing the augmenter tube and go to a more conventional exhaust, stay away from from those ships. It will be a while, but wait until the 450hp Alison powered H-395 gets back in the air. Better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. It's undescribably impressive!

Jason

There are two Allison powered Helio's flying, one for the Pima County Sherrif"s Dept. and one other that was for sale. The Allison is too small for the Helio at altitude, is loses power at 15,000 feet, problems arise from the compressor being too small, I get more power at that altitude from The Lycoming TIO-540 (turbo) The oil ejector tube in the H391B was found to have no significant function other than to create drag, there are other airplanes with the same GO-435 installation and the augmenter is not installed, such as the Super"B" Navion... Jason, if you would like a more detailed analysis on this Jim Metzler at JAARS will shed some light on why it was removed from "Ole" No. 1.......N242B

ccurrie wrote:Ive heard horror stories about the wings falling off apairently due to vibration caused by poor fabrick on the alerons is there any truth to this? struts would make me feel better!

I have never heard this nor experienced it, the Friese ailerons in the Helio are covered with Ceconite, and they must be drooped one inch when re-installing them, or you can get serious flutter. If you are referring to the wing carry-thru AD that was due to flight at high weight in severe to moderate turbulence at high speed (max cruise) which prompted the AD in 1982 it was pilot error.......

Stephen

I have heard about losing performance without the augmentor as well.Jason are you still working on helios anymore?

supercub185 wrote:I have heard about losing performance without the augmentor as well.Jason are you still working on helios anymore?

The only performance loss would be with noise, the only function of the augmenter tube.....less drag, more performance

Augmenter tube was for noise and cooling. I still am kinda sorta sometimes still working on Helios. Mostly working out of my shop now instead of Jim's, but I still help out when needed. We have 7 Helios in the neighborhood.

The Alison Turbine powered H395 That I am referring too was built back in 1985 and left the country around '90. It is back in the NW undergoing a minor rebuild and engine upgrade with more continuos HP (450 hp).

This is the plane I am talking about
http://buckens.com/Helio/index.html

Jason

jgerard wrote:Augmenter tube was for noise and cooling. I still am kinda sorta sometimes still working on Helios. Mostly working out of my shop now instead of Jim's, but I still help out when needed. We have 7 Helios in the neighborhood.

The Alison Turbine powered H395 That I am referring too was built back in 1985 and left the country around '90. It is back in the NW undergoing a minor rebuild and engine upgrade with more continuos HP (450 hp).

This is the plane I am talking about
http://buckens.com/Helio/index.html

Jason

That's the one I thought you were referring to, I remember when that Helio came back to the US. The first Helio with the Allison was built at the factory and flown in 1971, then it had only 317 SHP because most of those turbines were being built for helicopter operations, Jet Ranger and Hughes 500. I have the Pilot Report from that year in Rotor and Wing magazine..

There is this one as well........HT-295

heliodriver wrote:

jgerard wrote:Augmenter tube was for noise and cooling. I still am kinda sorta sometimes still working on Helios. Mostly working out of my shop now instead of Jim's, but I still help out when needed. We have 7 Helios in the neighborhood.

The Alison Turbine powered H395 That I am referring too was built back in 1985 and left the country around '90. It is back in the NW undergoing a minor rebuild and engine upgrade with more continuos HP (450 hp).

This is the plane I am talking about
http://buckens.com/Helio/index.html

Jason

That's the one I thought you were referring to, I remember when that Helio came back to the US. The first Helio with the Allison was built at the factory and flown in 1971, then it had only 317 SHP because most of those turbines were being built for helicopter operations, Jet Ranger and Hughes 500. I have the Pilot Report from that year in Rotor and Wing magazine..

The little Allisons millitary nomenclature was T63-A700 for the 317 hp. and T63-A720 for the 420 hp one. I think the civilians called them c18's and c20's, but I'm not sure on that. They are NOT good engines for off airport use. The compressors are lined with plastic and this plastic does not hold up well ingesting sand and dirt.
For you guy's flying OH-58's for Sheriff depts. etc The OH-58 A model is 317 HP and the C model 420. I think there are some B models out there which are A models with the C's engine and transmission.
I know trivia

I am curious what type of gear the Helio's use. Oleo? Kind of reminds me of a Stinson but hangs down quite a bit more.

WW

heliodriver wrote:

Desert185 wrote:I've always liked Helios and considered buying one when I bought the 185. The drawbacks for me were: slow cruise, costly to overhaul the geared Lyc, more fuel burned per mile flown (combined with small fuel tanks) and the 39' wingspan. As it turns out, the 39' wasn't an issue and I added a WingX STOL extension to the 185 for the same 39'. I would like to land as slow as the Helio in some cases, but so far, 50 MPH does what I need to do.

In my research prior to purchase, I found that the Helio does one thing really well and the 185 does everything pretty well, especially with 84 gals of 100LL, a Sportsman cuff, WingX and VG's.

Let me know if you would like to challenge your 185 to a "stand-off" with a 1000 pound payload into a 500 foot strip @ 11,000 feet. The cruise for the H-295 is 140 KTS, I do not call that slow, my fuel burn is 13.5 GPH, the last Helio 295 I had went to 1850 hours before overhaul, and it only cost me $7500.00

Let me know if you would like to challenge your Helio to a "stand-off" with a 1100 pound payload into a 700 foot strip after a 5+30 hour flight and land with one hour fuel. BTW, the fuel flow is 12 GPH.

Overhaul for $7500 on that engine? Man, that's great! Let me know where that is and I'll keep it mind for when my IO-520 is due. Should be about $5000 if yours is $7500.

I still think the Helio is a great airplane, BTW. I liken it to a Super Cub, but with more payload.

That overhaul was done 70% by me and the rest from a friend who was a DER at Helio back in the heyday.

You are on for a "stand-off" and I will up the anty to 1500 lbs.

On top of that, I get 7.2 hours range with an hour left in reserve with the 120 gallon fuel and Riley "rajay" turbo's

heliodriver wrote:That overhaul was done 70% by me and the rest from a friend who was a DER at Helio back in the heyday.

You are on for a "stand-off" and I will up the anty to 1500 lbs.

On top of that, I get 7.2 hours range with an hour left in reserve with the 120 gallon fuel and Riley "rajay" turbo's

1500# with 120 gal of gas...this I have to see. Not a stock airplane comparison, me thinks.

I like helios alot.I always wanted one and may do that.I have never seen one get off that good though.I imagine it is the pilot in lots of cases.Those old videos have lots of wind if you listen close to the narration audio.I have seen several jaars demos and they did no better than a pponked 180.I have heard the stories,but still waiting to see one really perform.The climbing turn thing is really impressive though.I wonder why they never caught on,they did'nt make much more than 500 of all models combined.Must be some reason? I imagine parts are getting scarce.Talking to helio ownersthey claim the engine and gearcase can be very expensive to rebuild and maintain.One former jaars employee who is a helio owner now claims airframe parts need to be made to order in some cases at a high cost.Very interesting aircraft,i would definitely like to try one.

The thing with The Helio and it's ability to get off very short, is as you say, pilot technique, it takes a certain developed awareness to get comfortable with this, but not uncommon. The reason so few Helio's were built was their almost prohibitive price, new. A bare bones Helio H-295 in 1968 ran $38,900, add some goodies and it soon reached the $50,000 mark, so the trade-off is extreme utility verses Bonanza speed. There were more than 500 Helio's built, more like 2,000 between 1954-74, keep in mind that the CIA built numerous airplanes off shore at the taxpayers expense, and when the factory shut down in late 1974 all the Company's money had been concentrated on the Stallion for the military (AU-24A) which darn near bankrupted Helio.

In 1975 Helio Aircraft Co. sued the CIA and they ended up settling out of court for a mere $50,000 so that in itself tells you how mismanaged the Company was at that point. If you are considering the purchase of a Helio, the H295 is the best bet performance wise, they possess the right combination of utility.

We are having a Helio Fly-in and conference May 17-18, 2008 in Oshkosh to address all the issues you mention, so if you are genuinely interested in a purchase and want to know about the components issue (parts) then we invite you to attend

heliodriver wrote: keep in mind that the CIA built numerous airplanes off shore at the taxpayers expense, and when the factory shut down in late 1974 all the Company's money had been concentrated on the Stallion for the military (AU-24A) which darn near bankrupted Helio.

In 1975 Helio Aircraft Co. sued the CIA and they ended up settling out of court for a mere $50,000 so that in itself tells you how mismanaged the Company was at that point. If you are considering the purchase of a Helio, the H295 is the best bet performance wise, they possess the right combination of utility.

Yet another example of why the guvmint shouldn't run an enterprise...like health care. Too bad for Helio Aircraft and the aircraft community.

Yup!!! and the blokes who own it now can't figure out what to do, they are wannabe Cessna, Piper dudes that think they can build a thousand airplanes a year.........What????

C'Mon man, the Helio is a gourmet airplane and if they would build parts instead of dinkin' around, the operators now would have their airplanes in good shape......

This makes me real "salty"

>188 KTS max. cruise
>3500 FPM
>1500 mile range with 224 gallons of Jet-A
>31,000 foot ceiling
>Land and take-off in 250 feet routinely

>Here is Tim Greene's Helio Stallion #001.....EAA Award .


Ok. I have a question... Where do you hide 224 gallons of Jet A. Inquiring minds and all.

Ben.

120 gallons in 4 tanks in the wings, and the rest in the "tuna tanks" at the tip, same ones as old 310's

Proper attitude for all Helio flying, this is where you want to be in most situations....."

Helio Stallion serial No. 1 with the now installed PT6A-34 (750 SHP)

Note the "yokes" instead of sticks, only one with these, the rest were fitted like military

Thank you sir. !!!!!!!!