Intora-firebird. H2O2 helicopter 3

[elvey]

I was one of the engineers working on this project over the last few years. With regard to the fuel, it is certainly no more dangerous than conventional fuels. In fact much safer, you just mustnt let it come into contact with anything organic. But as a fuel it has much to offer.
It's made from the atmosphere and its emmissions are pure, just water. There is even a guy in the states who has developed a technique of making it via a solar powered still. So you can really get a fantastic fuel for free. It would need to be distilled to raise the strength of the H2O2 up to the reqd level.
This is not wacky news time, its real. there are some universities working on the fuel to improve its performance, the main problem is to find a better catalyst.
We were using an improved chemical composition.
The real problem with the project was the short duration flying time.
Finally we needed to get new blades made and the cost was too great, so the company has put the whole project on the back burner. Also the company was concentrating on UAV model as a result of pressure from the military, the development costs were immense, also we were using the wrong people to develop this technology. Should have concentrated on the piloted version which was which was ready for production, with clients begging for it from around the world. An important feature of this craft was that it had NO radar signature. No engine, no emmissions, only steam, any untrained person could fly it after 20 mins instruction. You got something to beat that ??

 

[VEBill]

"...You got something to beat that ??"

Yes, real world testing.

(I'm not intending to be snide.)

Testing would probably change the "NO" to "minimal", change the "20 minutes" to "15 days assuming prerequisites", etc. There's nothing quite like real world, full scale, extensive testing to knock down the preproduction claims.

Still curious - Is there a website?

 

[rotorworks]

Just wondering if they are still working on it.
I had heard the military was interested, and the OGE performance seemed phenominal.
Can you say the current status?

 

[GraviMan]

"In fact (H2O2 is) much safer, you just mustnt let it come into contact with anything organic"

This is very interesting Elvey. I presume H2O2 is extremely alkaline, and reacts with organic compounds on contact. What levels of concentration are typical? Has anyone used this as a power booster in (say) a gas turbine? It strikes me that introducing H2O2 in a combustion chamber would keep temperatures sensible (water into steam), improve combustion (oxygenation) and really help military aircraft with a useful (but cool) boost...

Mart

 

[elvey]

Sorry I cant answer using the correct procedure, having probs with my pc or with the Eng-Tips site.


Answer to VE1BL
Your message difficult to understand,
Re: Yes, real world testing.
The Intora-firebird was tested on numerous occasions by a qualified test pilot. Mostly at Southend airport UK.

Answer to HELIDEV
Current status is that the project is mothballed. All equipment is in storage. All documentation, materials audit trails etc,done. suppliers, all drawings upgraded. In fact all ready for manufacture and all in compliance with CAA ( which is the biggest hurdle).

Answer to GraviMan
We were experimenting with mixing with kerosene, Aviation fuel. Results were quite startling, all gets rather dangerous, dont try it unless you have a very secure laboratory and testing facility.
With regard to using in conjunction with other propulsion techniques you have to be very aware that the H2O2 must not come into cotact with anything other than stainles steel or glass or good quality plastics etc, if there is contact with say a copper or brass compression washer for instance, well that would not be good. As was experienced with the Kursk submarine.
Remember that this fuel has been used by the USA and the USSR for missile propulsion for some time.
There is nothing new about it, the Germans invented it during WW2. we have merely improved on its efficiency, it now needs the final technical push to make it really viable.

 

[rotorworks]

Thats a shame.
Out of curiosity I read somewhere that it could hover OGE very high (20,000ft), which seemed a little on the high side to me, can you say, if you remember the max OGE figure?

 

[elvey]

To Helidev.

The scientists claimed that in theory the Intora-firebird could start a flight submerged under water and proceed to 20-30 thousand feet, well of course it was never attempted.
The fuel consumption was the main problem with attempting extremes of any kind. And frankly all our prospective purchasers were mainly interested for the military aspect, ie, to just hop up and take notes of a strategic situation and then quickly down, all unseen and un-detected ( radar proof )
Web site has been closed. Incidentally the Intora-firebird is a one man machine with no cabin, purely a skeletal frame, but we also have a 2 man machine complete with cabin Named Atlas.

I'm sure this is not the correct procedure to answer your post, can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
I've been gazing at this wretched screen for ages looking at the numerous options but cant find a way of answering an individual question, never had this prob before,

 

[rotorworks]

elvey, thanks for that.
Other than adressing the response theres no real way of targeting anyone.
Any pics of the Atlas?

 

[GraviMan]

"We were experimenting with mixing with kerosene, Aviation fuel. Results were quite startling..."

This is interesting. I'm going to have to read up on H2O2. I understand it is banned abord all submarines, except in Russia. Pity, a pressure release valve would have averted the Kursk disaster. I imagine it is a useful oxydiser ib space too...

"I'm sure this is not the correct procedure to answer your post, can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?"

Nothing! I normally quote whatever provoked my response...

Mart

 

[GraviMan]

BTW Elvey,

Did you find that the H2O2 + kerosine mix ignited spontaneously, or did the flame still need to be initiated?

Mart

 

[elvey]

The H2o2 mix, no flame intended just far greater reaction in order to get more efficiency from the fuel, any flame would be a very bad point because the machine had to be radar proof, the problem with mixing is that when the 2 fuels meet within the swirling tubes they are at quite a high pressure approx 100bar. this proved to be calamatious.
We tried it a few times both times we demolished the test house, brick and steel, and I escaped with my life.
So, dont try it, trust me. What is currently being urgently researched is the improvement of the catalyst material, to give longer flight time and improved efficiency.

Re pressure relief valve comment. I dont think this is the answer. H2O2 is not normally stored under pressure, but if it is necessary, then special types of relief valves are used whereby the escaping fluid is safely captured and neutralised. The point is that it simply must not come into contact with anything organic, or metals, materials with which it will have a reaction. With the Kursk it leaked through compression "O" rings that were not of the approved type, the H2O2 then made contact with material in the vicinity possibly oil, and then the horriffic chain of events began.
I do have some info on the Intora Firebird on a CD if someone wants a copy, I would just have to fathom out how to send it.

Remember that H2O2 Is just hydrogen peroxide, same as you get at the pharmacy, only difference is that for propulsion you need approx 98% which you cant buy, only direct from the mnfrs.
But, you can buy easier and cheaper 50% and then distil it up to 98%
Another interesting point to note that this fuel is made from the atmosphere, no materials reqd, just power to create the process. But if you use a solar power plant, then it is possible to create your own fuel free. This is currently being done by a scientist in USA or Mexico.
Cant understand why the Govt dont put their boffins to work on this.

 

[GregLocock]

"Remember that H2O2 Is just hydrogen peroxide, same as you get at the pharmacy, only difference is that for propulsion you need approx 98% which you cant buy, only direct from the mnfrs.
But, you can buy easier and cheaper 50% and then distil it up to 98%
Another interesting point to note that this fuel is made from the atmosphere, no materials reqd, just power to create the process. But if you use a solar power plant, then it is possible to create your own fuel free. This is currently being done by a scientist in USA or Mexico.
Cant understand why the Govt dont put their boffins to work on this."

Perhaps because as a fuel it doesn't work. H2O2 is an oxidiser not a fuel.

Now, it is obviously possible to electrolyse water or H2)2 into hydrogen, but I don't think that was your point.





Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[GraviMan]

"We tried it a few times both times we demolished the test house, brick and steel, and I escaped with my life.
So, dont try it, trust me..."

Wowsers! This sounds very dangerous for a private aircraft, although I appreciate you were doing DOD work. Is the 50% stuff you get from chemists any safer?

Mart

 

[elvey]

Reply to Graviman
I dont think H2O2 is dangerous, certainly not when you compare it to conventional fuels or liq. oxygen etc, you simply have to handle with rubber gloves, wear the right coveralls etc, have plenty of water available to drench any splashes or leaks. But of course the engineering is designed to ensure that there can be no probs. I mean the stuff cannot burst into flames, or ignite like conventional fuels.
50% peroxide is not at all good as a fuel, but possibly for fuel mixing, we were experimenting with this. Could be possible, more work req'd. It certainly did seem very promising. This perox is easier to obtain and cheaper. The mnfrs are not too keen about supplying the 98% because there are many transport restrictions, due to its dangerous nature. Ferry operators really dont like it on board, channel tunnel forbids it. Just a little drop spilt on some wood would cause a fire. Mind you the containers are very strong and the likelyhood of that happenning is quite remote.

The comment by GregLocock that it is not a fuel is surprising, I mean the Germans were using it to power rockets at the end of WW2 The Americans and Russians use it as a missile propellant. The RAF were using it for high altitude work many years ago, we were using it for our choppers and also for powering experimental emergency turbine generators.. So surely its a fuel, its the power source, there is nothing else being used apart from the catalyst. What else can it be classified as. Maybe GregLocock is a chemist and theoretically may be correct.
But in my book if it creates a movement that can lift a substantial payload, then its a fuel.

 

[GregLocock]

H2O2 is an oxidiser, not a fuel. It needs a fuel to burn, otherwise you'll just have a puddle of expensive water and some free oxygen.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[GraviMan]

"Just a little drop spilt on some wood would cause a fire."

This seems to suggest that a combustion accelerator is a good application. I can't imagine kerosine fairing much better.

If you expose H2O2 to copper you will get a cloud of superheated steam and oxygen. H2O2 may be used as an oxydiser, but it's decomposition also releases a LOT of energy. It is VERY unstable - that's why it doesn't appear in nature...

Mart

 

[PaulusMaximus]

"H2O2 is an oxidiser, not a fuel."
While this is true in a chemical sense, one must realize that there is quite a bit of energy bound up in this extra oxygen being attached. The catalyst simply causes this oxygen to liberate itself and be available for oxidizing something. But the huge amount of energy released when the oxygen is liberated is what turns water molecule into steam. In most cases the H2O2 is indeed used as a fuel. I believe the term is monogolic fuel. However in some applications it is used as an oxydizer....

 

[johnm7]

Elvey: I'm fascinated!! I saw something similar to this in Switzerland once a long time ago, could it be the same machine you are talking about? I noticed you mentioned UAV, single pilot - open and a closed version; from a technical standpoint, wouldn't it be best to keep structure weight minimal (i.e. UAV or single pilot,open)? What is the current status - is the company still running or this project only been cancled, any plans for a "re-make" or has another company bought the patents/rights? What were the main reasons for the "mothballing"? Please, if you can, send me a copy of that CD you mentioned (my adress: softplus [at] gmail.com), I'll gladly also pay for mail+copying .

I imagine a chopper like this would be the bit hit with the military guys + of course I'd love one for myself. Strange how sometimes the neat ideas go to hibernation and have to wait for the "right time"... (ok, maybe there are reasons)

Thanks,
John

 

[zepto]

Elvey,

I am very interested in the helicopter UAV and would like to learn more about your experience with them. Can I contact you via phone or email?

Thanks
Zepto

 

[elvey]

Reply to ZEPTO AND JOHNM7

If you wish to discuss Intora Firebird in more detail, contact me at paulelvey@yahoo.co.uk

The machine did spend quite some time being imroved in Switzerland also the USA. Currently mothballed in the UK Essex. Company ran out of funds, hopefully it might re-emerge at some future date. The real problem is finding a better catalyst for the H2O2, one that lasted longer. University of Surrey was doing tremendous amount of research on this, maybe they've cracked the problem and we dont know.