Author Topic: c/n 017, N4100D  (Read 4271 times)

Doug Johnson

c/n 017, N4100D
« on: January 11, 2015, 03:50:27 AM »
OK Canadian Helio fans check your photo albums for C-GOTP we only have N4100D pics

previous posts about N4100D      http://flyhelio.com/smf/index.php?action=search2       Enter N4100D

c/n 017, built 11/55 as model H-391B, original registry N4100D sold to, Charles Helin (Helin Tackle co) MI (2nd Helio of 2) placed in experimental category installed 3000lb up-gross (Helio mod #21) and Edo 249-2870 floats (with Factory assistance) 1st successful Helio floatplane (added to type certificate 2/57) Helio float plane is named ''Flatfish VIII” sold '66, Robert LaPoint MI sold '67, Helin Tackle co sold '67, dereg export then rereg as C-GOTP Voito Rintala, Leo Flabiano & Ernest Fasan OT sold '77, Voito Rintalli ON accident after A/C made hardlanding on unknown lake some damage then returned to Lake where it made another hard landing and sank near shore @ Mudlake 3km Lively ON 08/78, repaired accident just after liftoff the aircraft was observed to climb steeply then turned to the right and begin to descend in a stalled condition the A/C struck the beach in a nose up altitude under full power bounced and came to rest in shallow water investigation revealed the pilot had consumed aloholic beverages before the flight and it is susspected that he operated the controls improperly @ Whitewater lake On 07/83, repaired accident the pilot took off from brush lake improper use of flaps 40 degrees caused the sircraft to strike the 150 ft trees at the south end of the lake there was a post crash fire and aircraft was destroyed @ Bluff Lake 15S Sudbury ON 09/84, dereg as destroyed 2/90

Anyone know which "Flatfish" c/n 002 was ? According to Paul "On one earlier promo photo Charlie Helin is on a Stinson (I think) on floats which was Flying Flatfish V.  So by the time he got to his Helio c/n 017 he was up to Flying Flatfish VIII!"




cover below on AOPA (no article)







1st Article Aviation Age Nov 1957








2nd article
« Last Edit: October 21, 2016, 06:04:45 AM by Doug Johnson »
Doug

RCarter

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2015, 10:55:23 AM »
I am curious about the registration number.  Any reason the c/n 016 was N4101D and c/n 017 was N4100D?  I waited till Doug posted on c/n 018 and 019 to ask to confirm that the N-numbers were sequential, showing 4102D and 4103D, respectively.  Any ideas?

Doug Johnson

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2015, 02:40:16 PM »
My personal opinion formed from listening to a few others. The part that gives the c/n # Is the crash-cage/Fusealage #. As I understand it the Helios were built 5 at a time in 5 spots occasionaly they would get out of sequence in the process and one would get finished before another and then it sort of became first come first issued the next registry no. My understanding is that occasionaly a particular aircraft would be assigned a number that had a ring to it for instance 4100 for the first float plane or c/n "1414 was given N6464V" The next thing was someone would put an order in for a Helio that was still in the build process and want a special registry mark, and it would cause things to get out of sequence.

Please someone else offer there opinion also.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 10:56:54 AM by Doug Johnson »
Doug

Au Miner

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2015, 12:10:31 AM »
I can't offer a counter opinion, but I was wondering the same question.  I wondered about it a while back since I see 64V and 65V on a daily basis, but they aren't sequential

I do like that the company would assign a special registration number for a special plane.

I was reading the other day about Jack Fyre and the Helio he was flying, and that registration was reused in the 1980s on an 800 series when it left the factory.

Bill

Doug Johnson

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2015, 12:47:00 PM »
I just recieved some information concerning c/n 017, C-GOTP, len Harasimiuk gave me a list of Canadian Helio accidents 8 of them gave no registry mark.

I just recieved the identification on all but 1.

2 are the last two accidents with c/n 017, on the last accident it was destroyed.

I've attached the two.

And I'm going to edit the original post with the 2 accidents included.


« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 02:31:27 PM by Doug Johnson »
Doug

Doug Johnson

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2016, 10:54:10 AM »
added magazine article above
« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 02:36:19 PM by Doug Johnson »
Doug

Doug Johnson

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2016, 10:23:51 AM »
added 2nd article
Doug

Doug Johnson

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2016, 05:51:26 PM »
Here are a couple photos found on E-bay

Because of the newer H-395 paint scheme, these photos were probably taken just before being exported to Canada as C-GOTP

Also interesting mark painted on tail, ''Mk. II '' which leaves some doubt in my mind on its meaning, because it supposedly first appeared on the H-250, 2500 series as the Cabellaro Mark II.

Anyone have any knowledge or wild ass guesses, on the Mk. II painted on the tail?

opened photos above in first post
« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 06:02:44 PM by Doug Johnson »
Doug

Barry Dechert

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2016, 10:01:41 PM »
What I really find interesting is that the author relates to the control roll of the aircraft. Second is the fact that this aircraft had installed the 25 gal. Reserve tank which I have been in search for more information on.

Doug Johnson

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2016, 02:28:44 PM »
3 more photos slides found on ebay unless someone buys them and gives me a copy all you get is a slightly blurry preview photo I'll open them above in first post


Doug

Doug Johnson 1

Re: c/n 017, N4100D
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2018, 08:11:12 AM »
Here is a picture that should be #1 in the line up above.

It is kind of interesting because I was once told the AOPA magazine cover picture had incorrect colors.

The colors appear to be fairly close but not exactly the same.

The background ot this picture looks almost as if both pictures were taken noments apart.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2018, 08:23:12 AM by Doug Johnson 1 »