cstolaircraft wrote:

Halestorm wrote:Perry told me that the Helio Stallion(turbine Helio) was by far the most dangerous AND difficult to fly airplane he's ever flown/owned. Jim has owned a lot of crazy airplanes so I think that statement has some weight.


Otters have been converted to at least three different turbines, Vazar did the PT-6, both -135 and -34, and Viking did a one off -34. Texas Turbines does a Garret(900 horses!!!) and some outfit I don't know has done a Walter conversion. Never heard of an Allison (now Rolls Royce) and @ 450 hp I don't see it happening.

I would vote for an otter, on floats it's a remarkable airplane, must be a real hoot on wheels!

Sam

yes they are suppose very unstable. But we are talking about helio couriers that have a turbo prop up front. I'll try to get some pics

Yes, a Helio Courier with a turbo up front is called a "Helio Stallion"

http://www.helioaircraft.com/ourplanes_stallion.htm

Sam

No they are not!! the helio stallion is a 10 place aircraft. and they don't look a like.

It is like the difference from a turbo prop 206 and the big boy 208.

I see now, this is the airplane you're talking about... http://www.buckens.com/Helio/index.html ...looks like a one of a kind.

People say the Stallion is what drove Helio into bankruptcy, they built just 18 of them and the CIA never picked up the contract.

Sorry for the thread creep.

Sam

Right to both.

That's the original turbine cub, right? I saw it at Oshkosh a few years ago. Does anyone know what happened to the Innodyne engine?

Sam

Zane wrote:

kneel wrote:Ridge Runner,
I think the following is true. The Porter's vertical and rudder are the same exact piece each side of the horizontal and elevator. It makes a lot of sense from a production stand point.

That's an interesting observation. You're saying the vertical stab + rudder is essentially a horz stab + elevator turned on end?

Z,
Thats exactly what I am saying. Look at these two pics. They sure look like the exact same thing to me.
Horizontals:
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/images/pc6_1.jpg
Vertical:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Pilatus_PC-6_Turbo_Porter.jpg

They (the rudder/vertical stab and elevator/horizontal stab) sure look like the exact same thing to me.

It's the first I've ever heard of something like this.

oooooooh YA!!!! Just wicked!

I think Piper Aerostars use the same Horz /Elevator, Vertical / Rudder style of manufacturing.

How's about the Ehigh (Sp?) Trojan - it had interchangeable wings...... Sorry, I guess that's a little thread creep.

Ridge Runner wrote:

They (the rudder/vertical stab and elevator/horizontal stab) sure look like the exact same thing to me.

It's the first I've ever heard of something like this.

The Pilatus Porter was indeed designed to have all tail surfaces interchangeable. So was the original Grumman AA-1 Yankee I believe. Probably a couple of others out there too.

I don't know this for a fact but the fin/rudder on some of the Super Cubs looks pretty close to a stab/elevator as long as both have the counterbalance "elephant ears".

EZFlap wrote:

Ridge Runner wrote:

They (the rudder/vertical stab and elevator/horizontal stab) sure look like the exact same thing to me.

It's the first I've ever heard of something like this.

The Pilatus Porter was indeed designed to have all tail surfaces interchangeable. So was the original Grumman AA-1 Yankee I believe. Probably a couple of others out there too.

They are similar, but the rudder is not the same as the elevators (in finished state at least, they may be made with the same jig and then modified for their intended purpose), and the fin is not the same as the horizontal stabilizer. Without measuring anything, the main differences between the rudder and elevators is that the base of the rudder is angled up, whereas the elevators are square (see here); the rudder has a full length trim tab, the elevator has a short anti-servo tab (or is that servo tab?) from the centre out 8-10" and then a fixed trim tab farther out; the also rudder has a hole in the left side midway up that the actuator arm goes through back to the trim tab. The horizontal stabilizer is a single piece, so you'd have to cut one in half then trim the centre section off to get a fin, but it doesn't matter because the fin is symmetrical but the horizontal stabilizer isn't.

Another one as ridiculous as some others!?!?
Turbine 701!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTDSndG3y4A

GT

Does anyone have information on these small Turbo Props? I would love to see a 150 lb / 200 hp / Sub $20K engine with reverse. The Rolls/Allison is around 200lbs /420 hp / $125-$400K. A turbine cub with this engine would rock.

dirtstrip wrote:Unique, but so is the fuel bill!

http://www.zenith.aero/video/turbine-stol-homebuilt.

This is from an earlier post titled, "A turbine 701, A what? " but it tells a little about the engine. The guy just flies it on.

RE Obama posts:

Why is it that some people feel their own political opinions -- especially those unrelated to aviation -- are appropriate to an aviation forum? It certainly doesn't help back country pilots, nor the cause of expanding support for and understanding of general aviation.

Keep the irrelevant partisanship to yourselves, boys. It doesn't belong here.

Ron

rshannon wrote:RE Obama posts:

Why is it that some people feel their own political opinions -- especially those unrelated to aviation -- are appropriate to an aviation forum? It certainly doesn't help back country pilots, nor the cause of expanding support for and understanding of general aviation.

Keep the irrelevant partisanship to yourselves, boys. It doesn't belong here.

Ron

You just come from "hot air" perhaps?

Edit: Nevermind I glossed over it.

Nothing "hot air" about it, Meat Servo. Don't we all want to expand participation in aviation? Then why post irrelevant derogatory stuff that has a good chance of turning off a large percentage of the population? If it's something relevant to aviation, including politics and policy if you like, then by all means have at it, regardless of who might think it's in poor taste, if you must. I'm all for freedom of expression -- but preferably tempered by better judgment of what's appropriate in this forum, and better for aviation.

Ron

Frankly, a little banter and politics doesn't bother me. I looked at your first ever post and thought maybe you misplaced a reply. (And edited it with a "my bad" btw) The original thread misspelled turbine as turban so somebody took a jab. Big deal. What’s next we can't argue about wheel landings and 3 points? I quit frequenting a couple other forums because of the kindergarten PC police. Maybe I'm out of touch and that's where we are in aviation but I'd prefer to hang with the big kids who can have an adult conversation without crying about who's politician is getting picked on today...