6 ms·

Isn't this fuel rather toxic in case of accident?

arethuza 6y ago
One of concerns would be how much of it gets converted by the catalyst - if it's not 100% for any reason you've basically got a rotating sprinkler throwing HTP about. Edit: To be fair it's not HTP, fortunately for those under the flight path...
- rbanffy 6y ago
  Everyone around it will turn blonde.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    The Nazis would have loved this thing :D
- Justsignedup 6y ago
  Can this be converted to use standard combustible fuel? I wonder if this can be converted to a jet engine that pumps pressurized air out of the ends of the blade rather than this stuff.
  - liability 6y ago
    Maybe that could be made to work, but if you're already committed to using a gas turbine of any sort, why not make it a turboshaft engine and build a conventional helicopter? Either way you have to pay for the expensive maintenance of a turbine engine. If a rocket-helicopter could have any real advantages (they're certainly cool, but I'm rather skeptical), it would surely be the simplicity of the mechanism making it cheaper to operate.
    - Justsignedup 6y ago
      I think one of the big points is that elimination of the tail rotor could prevent 100% of the tail-rotor failure crashes. So something like 87% of crashes are related to tail rotor failures. So I guess that would be the advantage. Also lighter because you're now missing an entire complex mechanism for the tail rotor and potentially that giant tail.
      - liability 6y ago
        Coaxial rotor helicopters can be built without tail rotors, but my general impression is these are considered less reliable than conventional helicopters due to the added mechanical complexity of a coaxial system. But if tail rotor failure are that common, maybe coaxial rotor helicopters are worth the added complexity after all? They certainly seem more practical than rocket-helicopters.
        Justsignedup 6y ago
        Interesting!!! However those rotors are primarily used for accuracy when flying. I believe they give more accurate control at the cost of speed.
        liability 6y ago
        I'm not sure about that; the Russian Ka-50 coaxial attack helicopter seems reasonably quick, certainly not the fastest helicopter ever but comparable to an Apache at least (315km/h vs 293 km/h respectively, though the Apache has a higher never-exceed speed: 350km/h vs 365km/h) If you include compound helicopters (using horizontal pusher props or turbojets), coaxial helicopters can certainly be very quick; the S-97 can cruise at 410 km/h, but in that case you have the liabilities of a 'tail rotor' to contend with again. The S-69 could do a blistering 487km/h with it's turbojets, 289km/h without. One to consider is the Eurocopter X3, a single rotor compound helicopter without a tail rotor. It could do 472km/h and used two tractor propellers with variable pitch to counteract the rotor torque.
        NickNameNick 6y ago
        Helicopters without tail rotors (Kamovs, Chinooks, etc) are typcially faster than conventional helicopters - They aren't loosing ~20% of their power to the tail.
rbanffy 6y ago
It's a 3 according to it's NFPA 704 diamond, so yes. Not the worst rocket fuel, but not exactly healthy. If you touch it, it'll bleach you.
- liability 6y ago
  In addition to actually bleaching things, H2O2 has vasoconstrictive properties which can sometimes cause the appearance of skin being bleached. Whenever I apply pharmacy-grade hydrogen peroxide to my skin it causes a temporary 'bleached' effect that fades after a few minutes. This is apparently a matter of small blood vessels near the surface of my skin being constricted. Wikipedia doesn't mention this effect but it's not too hard to find sources on (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/860154/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/860154/). I'm not sure if large exposures could cause heart attacks though this effect, I suppose chemical burns would be the more immediate concern, but it's certainly not something I'd want to find out first hand.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    Well... The people who make the rocket apparently make HTP jetpacks, so I assume they haven't killed too many people with their gear. Yet.
    - liability 6y ago
      They take a lot of precautions I'm sure. It's dangerous stuff but obviously not impossible to handle if you know what you're doing.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        Unfortunately for my morning commute (which is not happening again anytime soon anyway), their HTP jetpack has about 20 seconds of flight time and, fortunately for society at large, you can't get HTP at a gas station.
twodave 6y ago
Yeah, I've got a few gallons of 30% H202 sitting in the garage (because the 3.5% household variety was out of stock on Amazon, I ordered from a lab and we dilute it ourselves). Requires wearing some protective clothing when dealing with it. Even when diluted to around 5-10% it can cause irritation and burns. That said, it's also not shelf-stable. After about 6 months of being opened it'll just be a gallon of water. Still cheaper than buying the branded stuff.
na85 6y ago
So is Jet A.

One of concerns would be how much of it gets converted by the catalyst - if it's not 100% for any reason you've basically got a rotating sprinkler throwing HTP about. Edit: To be fair it's not HTP, fortunately for those under the flight path...

rbanffy 6y ago
Everyone around it will turn blonde.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  The Nazis would have loved this thing :D
Justsignedup 6y ago
Can this be converted to use standard combustible fuel? I wonder if this can be converted to a jet engine that pumps pressurized air out of the ends of the blade rather than this stuff.
- liability 6y ago
  Maybe that could be made to work, but if you're already committed to using a gas turbine of any sort, why not make it a turboshaft engine and build a conventional helicopter? Either way you have to pay for the expensive maintenance of a turbine engine. If a rocket-helicopter could have any real advantages (they're certainly cool, but I'm rather skeptical), it would surely be the simplicity of the mechanism making it cheaper to operate.
  - Justsignedup 6y ago
    I think one of the big points is that elimination of the tail rotor could prevent 100% of the tail-rotor failure crashes. So something like 87% of crashes are related to tail rotor failures. So I guess that would be the advantage. Also lighter because you're now missing an entire complex mechanism for the tail rotor and potentially that giant tail.
    - liability 6y ago
      Coaxial rotor helicopters can be built without tail rotors, but my general impression is these are considered less reliable than conventional helicopters due to the added mechanical complexity of a coaxial system. But if tail rotor failure are that common, maybe coaxial rotor helicopters are worth the added complexity after all? They certainly seem more practical than rocket-helicopters.
      - Justsignedup 6y ago
        Interesting!!! However those rotors are primarily used for accuracy when flying. I believe they give more accurate control at the cost of speed.
        liability 6y ago
        I'm not sure about that; the Russian Ka-50 coaxial attack helicopter seems reasonably quick, certainly not the fastest helicopter ever but comparable to an Apache at least (315km/h vs 293 km/h respectively, though the Apache has a higher never-exceed speed: 350km/h vs 365km/h) If you include compound helicopters (using horizontal pusher props or turbojets), coaxial helicopters can certainly be very quick; the S-97 can cruise at 410 km/h, but in that case you have the liabilities of a 'tail rotor' to contend with again. The S-69 could do a blistering 487km/h with it's turbojets, 289km/h without. One to consider is the Eurocopter X3, a single rotor compound helicopter without a tail rotor. It could do 472km/h and used two tractor propellers with variable pitch to counteract the rotor torque.
        NickNameNick 6y ago
        Helicopters without tail rotors (Kamovs, Chinooks, etc) are typcially faster than conventional helicopters - They aren't loosing ~20% of their power to the tail.

rbanffy 6y ago

It's a 3 according to it's NFPA 704 diamond, so yes. Not the worst rocket fuel, but not exactly healthy. If you touch it, it'll bleach you.

liability 6y ago
In addition to actually bleaching things, H2O2 has vasoconstrictive properties which can sometimes cause the appearance of skin being bleached. Whenever I apply pharmacy-grade hydrogen peroxide to my skin it causes a temporary 'bleached' effect that fades after a few minutes. This is apparently a matter of small blood vessels near the surface of my skin being constricted. Wikipedia doesn't mention this effect but it's not too hard to find sources on (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/860154/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/860154/). I'm not sure if large exposures could cause heart attacks though this effect, I suppose chemical burns would be the more immediate concern, but it's certainly not something I'd want to find out first hand.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  Well... The people who make the rocket apparently make HTP jetpacks, so I assume they haven't killed too many people with their gear. Yet.
  - liability 6y ago
    They take a lot of precautions I'm sure. It's dangerous stuff but obviously not impossible to handle if you know what you're doing.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      Unfortunately for my morning commute (which is not happening again anytime soon anyway), their HTP jetpack has about 20 seconds of flight time and, fortunately for society at large, you can't get HTP at a gas station.

twodave 6y ago

Yeah, I've got a few gallons of 30% H202 sitting in the garage (because the 3.5% household variety was out of stock on Amazon, I ordered from a lab and we dilute it ourselves). Requires wearing some protective clothing when dealing with it. Even when diluted to around 5-10% it can cause irritation and burns. That said, it's also not shelf-stable. After about 6 months of being opened it'll just be a gallon of water. Still cheaper than buying the branded stuff.

na85 6y ago

So is Jet A.