A problem with part 103 aircraft is that a pilot has to weigh under 200# usually to fly one. I wish they'd up the weight for these to allow a heavier person, to allow more fuel, and to allow safety equipment such as fuel guage, airspeed, light, etc. If I build a kit I will install safety equipment that I feel I need no matter if it meets part 103 or not. The FAA needs to review and modify these requirements.
Dan, you have been consistently bringing great content to the flying community for years. As a former military pilot and now currently with my Quicksilver Sport 2S, on behalf of many pilots out there..we thank you! I’m not sure how you maintain this pace, but we appreciate your efforts to inform and simply share the joys of flight. Subscriber ❤️ God bless - Michael
On the Russian coaxial rotor, that is a throttle connected to a COLLECTIVE in his left hand! So he has full helicopter controls, pedals, cyclic, collective and throttle!
USA aircraft makers have practically no interest in hobby gyros. All you see are European kits, etc. But considering the outrageous cost of these rotorcraft anyhow, fixed-wing flying is the better path for most recreational pilots even the entire sport requires deep pockets.
...The result was the first successful rotorcraft, which he named Autogiro in 1923.[13] De la Cierva's autogyro used an airplane fuselage with a forward-mounted propeller and engine, an un-powered rotor mounted on a mast, and a horizontal and vertical stabilizer. His aircraft became the predecessor of the modern helicopter.
The russian coax chopper is not gonna make 103, it is 348.33 pounds, adding floats will not help, it will still be overweight, kit is 35k fully built with test flying stand is almost 70k
1:25 It’s a hobby drone you can fly in. No worries about seeing where you are on your iPhone, or wondering the HE Double Hockey Sticks your drone flew off to.
Well where can I buy one of these mini choppers, how can I place an order ? What is the factory details, there is no use showing these things without what I mentioned above, how much does it cost etc.......?
First one seems complex. Dual counter rotating rotors with full helicopter swash plate control for each. That seems like a lot of trouble for just part 103. Any mention of price? I wonder if anyone has ever done a 2 side by side rotor config helicopter. I guess the challenge is balancing the throttle but with computer control it might work well.
On July 31, 2020, I updated my website article (www.bydanjohnson.com/chopper-town-circular-exploring-two-rotary-winged-aircraft-1-helo-1-gyro/) with more info from RD Heli. Basic kit price is about $33,500. For any helicopter, that strikes me as not particularly expensive although building a kit with Russian support may open new challenges. Is it too complex? Well, perhaps, but it is very compact and appears easier to fly than a convention single rotor helicopter although I am not qualified to say how "easy" it truly is. The pilot flying it in the video may just be very good.
@@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation seems like a good price, quality russian labor might be inexpensive. I don't think it's too complex in any absolute sense, just seems it's a lot of critical parts that have to function well under constant high stress. I tend to shy from complex high strain designs towards calm harmonious stable designs if I can help it. A plane with a solid prop is a calmer arrangement. You'd need the tailless hover to go that route. Swash plate in general seems icky to me when you force the blade to twist for every single revolution. and then to have two on overlapping axles. It's quite some engineering. He could develop a micro turbofan engine for LSA weight planes instead. That would be interesting. Imagine twin jet pressurized LSAs. 400ktas @FL400 for less than 200k$. Wouldn't that be something. I agree it probably is fairly easy to fly because of counter rotation. Until something goes wrong :)
Они показывают, как развивается рекреационная авиация в Польше и ЕС. На видео показан польский JK-2 Nano. Согласно правилам ЕС, на нём можно летать без лицензии и экзаменов, поскольку он весит менее 115 килограммов. Даже для моторной лодки нужно иметь удостоверение, а для этого ничего нет. Вы можете просто купить его, сесть и улететь. Тем не менее, производитель предлагает обучение и рекомендует им воспользоваться. Вот почему он выглядит так, все, чтобы уменьшить вес без ущерба для безопасности. Конечно, это не военный самолет, в правилах достаточно четко прописаны полеты без лицензии. Например, он не может лететь быстрее 90 км/ч в горизонтальном полете или брать на борт более чем 20 литров топлива.
Вот как выглядит полет на нем из середины: ruclips.net/video/wYBAO7VhmN8/видео.html А вот как это видно с земли: ruclips.net/video/52s-_oPU_C8/видео.html
But when it's so tiny, does the mass below that thrust line really add up to that much to be such a concern? Seems like at least a quarter of the total mass is in the overhead rotor, and another half of the mass is in the engine which is right on the thrust line. So that just leaves a quarter of the mass below the thrust line, which probably balances out.
@@manofsan the issue is that in a situation where the rotor is temporarily unloaded (negative G, or turbulence) the resistance of the rotor to the gyros tendency to rotation around the center of mass is gone, and with the prop pushing from behind the gyro can rotate forward, in whats called a Power Push Over. This can happen when the prop thrust line of a pusher is not aligned with the center of mass. And it’s bad because the forward pitching leads to the blades flexing and striking the prop or tail and of course breaking up as a result.
I think in USA to qualify as "ultralight" it must use a 2-stroke engine only. But I may be wrong. I am waiting for something like this (when I can afford it) or an electric ultralight - they should be coming soon.
Nothing is specified about the engine, it could even have a motor instead, as long as empty weight doesn't exceed 254 pounds, and speed doesn't exceed 63 mph.
@@richardjenkins4182 how do they know whether or not it can exceed 63mph? Doesn't that just depend on how hard you fly it? I presume any engine can be de-tuned to put out less hp than what it was designed for. I bet the right tailwind could put you over, even if you're not rated for that.
Thank you Dan,
Please keep it coming.
A problem with part 103 aircraft is that a pilot has to weigh under 200# usually to fly one. I wish they'd up the weight for these to allow a heavier person, to allow more fuel, and to allow safety equipment such as fuel guage, airspeed, light, etc. If I build a kit I will install safety equipment that I feel I need no matter if it meets part 103 or not. The FAA needs to review and modify these requirements.
Lose weight and be healthier.
Dan, you have been consistently bringing great content to the flying community for years. As a former military pilot and now currently with my Quicksilver Sport 2S, on behalf of many pilots out there..we thank you! I’m not sure how you maintain this pace, but we appreciate your efforts to inform and simply share the joys of flight. Subscriber ❤️ God bless - Michael
On the Russian coaxial rotor, that is a throttle connected to a COLLECTIVE in his left hand! So he has full helicopter controls, pedals, cyclic, collective and throttle!
RD Micron-3 Kit; Documentation - in russian. thats gonna be a bit a problem in the usa. Also do rotorcraft fall under part 103 ?
That Nano looks great and is competitive w/ other ultralights, at around $20K euro or $24K US.
doesn't look like it can carry any luggage, though
is my desirer to have one of this or similar, it is so cool. how much is one??? any body knows?? more than hundread ?? how many more???
As I understand it, an aircraft has to be under 265 lbs and a fuel tank not exceeding 5 gallons.
USA aircraft makers have practically no interest in hobby gyros. All you see are European kits, etc. But considering the outrageous cost of these rotorcraft anyhow, fixed-wing flying is the better path for most recreational pilots even the entire sport requires deep pockets.
Thanks Dan, if you're ever out Houston way, maybe a flight in the new Chinook SJ ?!
...The result was the first successful rotorcraft, which he named Autogiro in 1923.[13] De la Cierva's autogyro used an airplane fuselage with a forward-mounted propeller and engine, an un-powered rotor mounted on a mast, and a horizontal and vertical stabilizer. His aircraft became the predecessor of the modern helicopter.
The russian coax chopper is not gonna make 103, it is 348.33 pounds, adding floats will not help, it will still be overweight, kit is 35k fully built with test flying stand is almost 70k
เพื่อทำยากอยู่เหมือนกันเรื่องความเร็วต้องแม่นจริงๆเดินไม่ได้ขาดไม่ได้
No one can hide from Dan forever...He's located Q out playing with the best Bond toys again... lol
Hello Dan, is it possible to visit and test fly this aircraft (JK 2 Nano) in Germany? Please advise. Thanks in advance, Ferdinand
1:25 It’s a hobby drone you can fly in. No worries about seeing where you are on your iPhone, or wondering the HE Double Hockey Sticks your drone flew off to.
nope...; I am not coming back soon.........
How do you learn to fly it?
Well where can I buy one of these mini choppers, how can I place an order ? What is the factory details, there is no use showing these things without what I mentioned above, how much does it cost etc.......?
There's factory web addresses listed, use those and your favorite search engine+browser. If you can't do that much work I would really doubt it.
Russia forward!
First one seems complex. Dual counter rotating rotors with full helicopter swash plate control for each. That seems like a lot of trouble for just part 103. Any mention of price?
I wonder if anyone has ever done a 2 side by side rotor config helicopter. I guess the challenge is balancing the throttle but with computer control it might work well.
On July 31, 2020, I updated my website article (www.bydanjohnson.com/chopper-town-circular-exploring-two-rotary-winged-aircraft-1-helo-1-gyro/) with more info from RD Heli. Basic kit price is about $33,500. For any helicopter, that strikes me as not particularly expensive although building a kit with Russian support may open new challenges.
Is it too complex? Well, perhaps, but it is very compact and appears easier to fly than a convention single rotor helicopter although I am not qualified to say how "easy" it truly is. The pilot flying it in the video may just be very good.
@@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation seems like a good price, quality russian labor might be inexpensive. I don't think it's too complex in any absolute sense, just seems it's a lot of critical parts that have to function well under constant high stress. I tend to shy from complex high strain designs towards calm harmonious stable designs if I can help it. A plane with a solid prop is a calmer arrangement. You'd need the tailless hover to go that route. Swash plate in general seems icky to me when you force the blade to twist for every single revolution. and then to have two on overlapping axles. It's quite some engineering. He could develop a micro turbofan engine for LSA weight planes instead. That would be interesting. Imagine twin jet pressurized LSAs. 400ktas @FL400 for less than 200k$. Wouldn't that be something.
I agree it probably is fairly easy to fly because of counter rotation. Until something goes wrong :)
Не чё не понял но интересно
Они показывают, как развивается рекреационная авиация в Польше и ЕС.
На видео показан польский JK-2 Nano.
Согласно правилам ЕС, на нём можно летать без лицензии и экзаменов, поскольку он весит менее 115 килограммов.
Даже для моторной лодки нужно иметь удостоверение, а для этого ничего нет.
Вы можете просто купить его, сесть и улететь.
Тем не менее, производитель предлагает обучение и рекомендует им воспользоваться. Вот почему он выглядит так, все, чтобы уменьшить вес без ущерба для безопасности.
Конечно, это не военный самолет, в правилах достаточно четко прописаны полеты без лицензии.
Например, он не может лететь быстрее 90 км/ч в горизонтальном полете или брать на борт более чем 20 литров топлива.
@@Yaroooo спасибо 😊
Вот как выглядит полет на нем из середины:
ruclips.net/video/wYBAO7VhmN8/видео.html
А вот как это видно с земли:
ruclips.net/video/52s-_oPU_C8/видео.html
@@Yaroooo хорошая Штуковина, из Д-16т наверное сделан каркас 🤔
That Nano looks worrisome, engine is too high, and gear is too short, like a Bensen, possibly a PPO risk...
Yes, the thrust line should be much lower, closer to the CG of the person (just above the thighs).
But when it's so tiny, does the mass below that thrust line really add up to that much to be such a concern? Seems like at least a quarter of the total mass is in the overhead rotor, and another half of the mass is in the engine which is right on the thrust line. So that just leaves a quarter of the mass below the thrust line, which probably balances out.
@@manofsan the issue is that in a situation where the rotor is temporarily unloaded (negative G, or turbulence) the resistance of the rotor to the gyros tendency to rotation around the center of mass is gone, and with the prop pushing from behind the gyro can rotate forward, in whats called a Power Push Over. This can happen when the prop thrust line of a pusher is not aligned with the center of mass. And it’s bad because the forward pitching leads to the blades flexing and striking the prop or tail and of course breaking up as a result.
I think in USA to qualify as "ultralight" it must use a 2-stroke engine only. But I may be wrong. I am waiting for something like this (when I can afford it) or an electric ultralight - they should be coming soon.
Nothing is specified about the engine, it could even have a motor instead, as long as empty weight doesn't exceed 254 pounds, and speed doesn't exceed 63 mph.
@@richardjenkins4182 how do they know whether or not it can exceed 63mph? Doesn't that just depend on how hard you fly it? I presume any engine can be de-tuned to put out less hp than what it was designed for. I bet the right tailwind could put you over, even if you're not rated for that.
@@manofsan groundspeed doesn't matter for part 103.
@@douglascooke1926 - I thought Part103 restricts how fast the aircraft can fly - I'm pretty sure it's in there.
@@manofsan yes. Maximum of 55 knots AIRspeed. Not Groundspeed.
Why do they not sell in the United States?