aviatorx

.... I wonder if he's doing a slow roast on the powerlines? Hell of a jump for a deer with no lower leg...

I believe you speak of the pointer that's mounted to the block?....that points to the degree scale on the harmonic balancer? Yes, it has a specific mount point on the block - but understand that the pointer is really only approximate - true TDC is measured with a degree wheel, and is acheived when the #1 piston is at the top of it's stroke, and both valves are closed (normally) - just prior to the power stroke. Frankly, you can mount the pointer anywhere you want - as long as the zero points to the notch on the crank balancer at TDC! Sorry for the smart-ass answer, but if you look at the crank balancer it mounts at the front cover in the upper left quadrant - just bolt it in. The bolt spread should help you locate it.

Here is another Hiller design - Flying Platform Model 1031 that was certainly the predesessor for the weed eater: ...certain death again! But this one would be an absolute blast to tool around the farm with:

Well, if I was going to spend (OK, IF I HAD) the $1 million they say it will command, you bet your ass I'd fly it! The agreement with the builder not to fly it is to deflect insurance liability for the certain death of the new owner... ...here's a predesessor from the late '50's, and it did autorotate: "Hundreds of United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps helicopters operated during the Korean War, yet the enemy continued to capture American aircrews downed in hostile territory. Time was the critical factor. Any delay to the rescue helicopter, whether from weather, mechanical problems, or enemy action, meant almost certain capture. Near the end of the war, Marine Corps leaders saw a potential breakthrough in helping aircrews evade the enemy and return to friendly territory. Since World War II, the captains of the helicopter industry measured the progress of rotorcraft development in leaps and bounds. In particular, the trend toward smaller and lighter helicopters was remarkable. In 1953, the U. S. Navy, on behalf of the U. S. Marine Corps, announced a competition to design and build a one-man helicopter. The aircraft had to be man-portable, small and compact in storage but quick to assemble by one person. Aircrews would carry this tiny aircraft with them on every mission and if forced down, fly it to friendly territory. Marine Corps leaders also hoped the aircraft might give individual infantrymen air mobility for special tactical missions. Thirty firms competed for the contract, but the Navy selected only two, the Hiller ---Aircraft Company and the Gyrodyne Company of America. The Marine's judged Gyrodyne's YRON-1 design (with twin, coaxial, main rotor) impractical for one-man operation. Later, the Navy adopted this concept as the Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter (DASH) and several of these rotorcraft operated from destroyers with decks too small to mount helipads. Hiller won the contract and began to develop an innovative flying machine designated the XROE-1. The firm also appended the name 'Rotorcycle' to the new aircraft. Since Stanley Hiller flew his first helicopter, the XH-44 Hiller-Copter (see NASM collection), in 1944, the young inventor from California had earned a reputation for unique and innovative approaches to vertical flight. Hiller's experimental research division had developed and flown the ramjet-powered HOE-1 and the Model 1031 Flying Platform (see NASM collection for both aircraft). The prototype Rotorcycle weighed a scant 132 kg (290 lb). Fully packed and ready for loading aboard a Navy or Marine aircraft, the XROE-1 was just 70 cm (27 in) in diameter. The unassembled aircraft fit easily inside a streamlined pod. An airplane could carry one or more of these pods on wing racks and drop them by parachute to grounded aircrews. One man could assemble the Rotorcycle, ready-to-fly, in five minutes without special tools. Most major components unfolded on hinges and locked into place, anchored by preinstalled locking pins. Hiller packaged the tailboom separately but it was easy to snap into position. At the end of the tailboom, a small tail rotor turned to counteract torque generated by the single main rotor. Hiller made the helicopter as easy to fly as possible and he added his patented "Rotormatic" gyro-stabilization system to the main rotor. Control was slightly unconventional because Hiller suspended the cyclic stick over the pilot's head to simplify the control linkages and to make folding the aircraft easier. Otherwise, the controls resembled those of most other contemporary helicopters. The Rotorcycle was so stable that Hiller expected a non-pilot to fly it after only 8 hours of instruction. For its diminutive size, the helicopter had excellent performance except in range. The fuel tank held 9.1 liters (2.4 gals) of gasoline, enough to fly 64 km (40 miles) in calm weather at a cruise speed of 84 kph (52 mph). A person could bolt floats onto the standard, tripod-strut landing gear for operations on smooth water. The center-of-gravity range was extremely limited, prohibiting a lightweight pilot from flying without a small bucket filled with ballast and suspended from the front landing gear strut to safely balance the Rotorcycle. Hiller constructed a non-flying prototype for structural tests and one flight-test model. The XROE-1 first flew in November 1956. The Rotorcycle performed well and impressed Marine Corps officers who ordered five YROE-1 rotorcraft for evaluation. Hiller did not have the capacity to build these aircraft because the Hiller UH-12/H-23 scout utility helicopter program had consumed all manufacturing capacity. The British manufacturer, Saunders-Roe, built the five Marine Corps Rotorcycles under license to Hiller, and built an additional five Rotorcycles for sale overseas. The firm finished all ten by 1961. The YROE-1 performed well during tests but those evaluating the helicopter discovered some problems. A downed pilot trying to evade capture at the controls of the slow, noisy Rotorcycle was extremely vulnerable unless he could make his escape under cover of darkness, haze, or other weather conditions. To fly safely when night or bad weather obscured the earth's horizon, a pilot had to rely on navigation and attitude instruments such as the compass, altimeter, airspeed indicator, turn-and-bank, and other gauges. Yet, Hiller made no provisions on the YROE-1 for mounting these instruments; the space around the Rotorcycle pilot was open to the air. The Navy had to prohibit flying at night, or when haze or low clouds restricted visibility, making the Rotorcycle much less effective. The debut of turbine-powered helicopters in the late 1950s, and improved search and rescue techniques, sealed the Rotorcycle's fate and the Navy cancelled the program. A number of Rotorcycles still survive and a private owner continues to fly one example, in good weather. Hiller donated the second YROE-1 to the Smithsonian Institution after the test program ended in 1961. " By the way, there is also an example of this 'aircraft' in the US Army Aviation Museum at Ft Rucker AL

In the recent past I've posted several times on having acquired a g-nose from Showcars. The purchase was made on eBay, and I think several of you have followed the thread as there was interest in a group buy. HybridZ thread Upon arrival, the g-nose had several flaws that would have required extensive modification in order to get a proper fit, and I even posted some pictures to illustrate the point. I brought these to the attention of Rob Johnson at Showcars, and I have to admit he appears to be doing the right thing - at least by me. Rob has looked at the pictures I posted and agrees that there are fitment issues beyond that of a minor nature, and that he has modified his mold and made trial fits to a 240Z he has access to. The end result is that he has agreed to ship out a new part in exchange for my original purchase. Frankly, that is what he should do as a good businessman. I wanted to add this post in order to present some balance to my experience so that the HybridZ membership gets the whole story, not just my pissed off rants about a bad part. I will, of course, document the new part on arrival. More to follow...

It's an interesting re-adaptation of an old idea. The US Army funded several similar projects in the '50's and 60's (flying platform and flying jeep) with limited success - the biggest issue with these type of vehicles is it's hard to find a test pilot willing to try an engine out procedure! I'd hate to be the first one....it won't autorotate like a helicopter, has no provision for a parachute recovery (you'd need altitude for that anyway) and has the aerodynamics of a brick. How come Bond isn't using it?

Doug - Mike Kelly has a set that he may have installed by now. I believe he had them for his white Z. You may want to try contacting him directly. He is a distributor for VB so if you are serious about buying a set he may be able to save you $ as well.

... sounds like a perfect opportunity to go convertible

Very cool if you like an engine compartment just crammed with metal. Wild idea that seems well executed, but the intercoolers look way too small to be of real benefit, and the long piping runs provide lots of surface area for radient heat absorbtion from other engine components - not to mention he's added about 100 extra pounds to the car! Then again, what's a hundred on a 5000 lb chasis!

....anyone on the east coast want to set up production? eBay

one is the reverse switch that activates the back up lights, the other is the neutral switch. I believe they are both on the same wiring harness? I can't remember which switch is position where, but it should be evident when you connect them - do it one switch at a time with the transmission in reverse and the key turned to accessory - when the back up lights are illuminated you have the correct connection.... the remaining wires go to the neutral switch. Picture below shows my original '76 4 speed with both sensors on the passenger side of the front case. You may be able to blow it up for closer inspection if you copy it.

I am giving them a chance to make things right, but no response yet

Stony - where did you get your g-nose? And, am I crazy, or do the flares look like they are on backwards?

multiply the cost by 1.60149 (this changes daily by the way)for $USD$ equivalent - good luck on the freight!

Ok, here's some pictures that I've taken that hopefully allow others to see what Im working with, and trying to describe in the messages above. 1. This first image shows the passenger side bucket to fender seam after having cut away nearly all of the mounting flange on the g-nose....not bad alignment, but there is more work remaining... 2. This image should help you see what I mean when I'm describing the g-nose flange to fender problem. the view is from the top and a straight edge spans the back edge of the headlight bucket from inner to outer edge. You can see a mix of daylight and flange bulge creating an inconsistant edge =- one that is not parallel to the fender it is suposed to mount to. Not shown well here is that the top edge of the headlight bucket top edge also falls away form the seam line. 3. This is the rear of the drivers side headlight bucket showing the mounting flange after the first trim to accomodate the headlight. The flange is quite thick (nearly 1/4") and about 1.5" wide thus requiring trimming. 4. The last image shows the gap at the base of the pass side headlight indicating that the bucket was not molded deep enough to wrap aroud the headlight as in the original bucket. I've also found the seam between the hood and g-nose to be less than optimal (those pictures, and these above can also be found here - g-nose on Picturetrail.com I've not gone any further with my work on the g-nose beyond what you see here. Any one with experience correcting these deficiencies is welcome to comment!

I've been running into some issues with the eBay g-nose I bought that others may want to be aware of should you decide to go down the same path. The purchase was made from Showcars-Bodyparts in Toronto, and this is the same guy offering another g-nose on ebay for $495. I've been working on getting the fender to gnose seam consistant across the headlight bucket, and I'm finding that the molded flange is not perpendicular to the headlight bucket, and thus does not allow for a good fit since the fender front and bucket rear are not parallel. In order to get them parallel I have to back cut the flange to a point where there is no longer any flange remaining to mount the bucket to the fender. My second issue is that the buckets are not molded deep enough to properly wrap around the headlight as in the original configuration. With the bucket cut out removed, I have a 1/2" gap at the bottom, even with the bucket rear firmly seated against the fender front. There was no way to make this cut out deeper, and you cannot simply push the bucket rearward to close the gap because of the interference fit at the inner fender. I realize there is a certain amount of customization required with any fiberglass part, but I think that these areas speak to a bad mold, and I would have to change my opinion of the product based on my last 2 days of fitting. I freely admit I have no previous glass experience, but this isn't rocket science! And since I've not had the advantage of seeing any other g-nose installations I'm proceeding on instinct. I would have to NOT reccommend anyone else pursue a g-nose from this guy, unless he can prove he's fixed his mold to correct, at minimum, the above deficiencies. I know MikeK, Tim240Z and others have expressed interest in his fiberglass, and I hate to turn someone away, but my experience over the past few days tell me you'd be better to pay the extra money and take your business elsewhere. At this point I'm looking at giving the g-nose to a good local bodyshop with glass experience to make it work, and I'll probably be another $200 into it - shame one me - should have went with the MSA kit?! Dammit, John Washington, make one of these!!!!! I'll post pics if anyone's interested.

Eric - I'll take some pictures in daylight to illustrate my problem - I can understand the difficulty in grasping with my description! If you can immagine a top view of the g-nose on the car, the flange at the back of the headlight buckets bow out toward the fender, making the surfaces unable to make a proper seam. A pictures worth a thousand words....I'll get some up.

I bought a g-nose on Ebay last month for $500 plus $75 shipping from the same guy selling this one below - g-nose on eBay The quality and finish is reasonably good - but be prepared to do a bit of fit and finishing to mount it correctly. MSA sells a knock off of the original NISMO kit for ~$700, and has the lens covers as well for about the same price. The air dam does look like a MSA unit as Yo2001 mentioned.

Coke bottle shapes look great on cars.....and women....but I digress. Great concept Eric! I think a g-nose would look great on that concept as it would carry the curves you put on the corners and cary the theme across the front, rather than settling for the square nose of the original design. I also like the intergration of the fender flares into the doors - too often the flared fender look stops at the door frame and creates a 'flat' between the front and rear quarters that detract from the final appearance. I like how it continues a curve along the body sides. My one complaint, if that's possible , is that the hips are too wide in ther rear, and might look better (?) squared off at the fender well. Just my opinion... I suspect the may be a tail light panel in the works as well? I like where you are going with the design. Side views would be next?????? NO pressure!

same same on my 5 speed - it was the center (thrust) bearing cage that went out, and that means that now your entire gear train is suspended by the front and rear case bearings....with the additional side loads being placed on them via torque and shifting, they will disintergrate as well. They are a bitch to replace - you need a bearing press, spoons, plates, etc.... may as well freshen up the whole dog while you are in there.

I was able to take only one pic before my camera batt died - more to folow if necessary..... or web page the 4 speed on the left is a genuine '76....the 5 speed on the right is from an unknown year unfortunately (anyone able to ID it?) As I mentioned above, the 4 speed has a completely different rear case - the 5 speed is taller with a smaller diameter at the output shaft, and the 4 speed has a removable cover over the shift rod. Hope this helps.

There is very little physical difference between the two - I have both in my garage and can provide comparative pics later this morning. My '76 came with a 4 speed, and I have not cleaned it up so the pics will show it with all the applicable road grime. My 5 speed is being rebuilt so the internals are out, but I can show the nicest looking case you've ever seen! Of course, the easiest way to determine a 4 or 5 speed is to run it through the gears! 4 + reverse is a 4 speed.......5 + reverse = 5 speed In addition, the shift rod in my 4 speed has an access cover on the case just forward of the shifter - the 5 speed does not. Be aware there is also a difference in length - and thus the driveshaft length is different - search the site as this has been covered many times ...

sorry about the double post... Food for thought -if you need to cut into the rocker corners while you are on a rotisserie, you will want to tack weld some bracing to take those loads while you fabricate...otherwise you will surely have a bent chasis, and doors will be a bitch to line up! Let us know what you find ...

Your rust damage may be limited to the wheel well, but I doubt it ..... Personally, I'd cut out the rust - or at least get in there to see how extensive the rust damage is(full wells are available as replaceent steel at Mill Supply (Tabco), Vic Britt, and others .... you will probably find rust in the rear quarter dog leg (lower forward portion of rear quarter - and they are reparable as well) but take a GOOD look at the inside rear of the rocker box! The forward and rear atachment points of that assembly are MOST important to what rigidity the Z has! Outer rockers are also available - but inners are NLA I believe... At best you have a small patch job in the well and some clean up at the rockers...at worst - well, don't go there yet.

Your rust damage may be limited to the wheel well, but I doubt it ..... Personally, I'd cut out the rust - or at least get in there to see how extensive the rust damage is(full wells are available as replaceent steel at Mill Supply (Tabco), Vic Britt, and others .... you will probably find rust in the rear quarter dog leg (lower forward portion of rear quarter - and they are reparable as well) but take a GOOD look at the inside rear of the rocker box! The forward and rear atachment points of that assembly are MOST important to what rigidity the Z has! Outer rockers are also available - but inners are NLA I believe... At best you have a small patch job in the well and some clean up at the rockers...at worst - well, don't go there yet.