AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Secret or Developing projects, first peeks...

AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby AADX » 03 Jan 2011 18:04

AADX_HEL_11_512.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Here’s to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
User avatar
AADX
Administrator
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 12:13
Location: Great Falls, MT

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby AADX » 04 Jan 2011 17:14

AADX_HEL_11-2_1024.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Here’s to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
User avatar
AADX
Administrator
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 12:13
Location: Great Falls, MT

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby AADX » 11 Jan 2011 18:38

AADX_HEL_11-3.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Here’s to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
User avatar
AADX
Administrator
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 12:13
Location: Great Falls, MT

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby AADX » 12 Jan 2011 15:49

:geek:

ok, 2011/01..

Taking a very small amount of time away from a long heavy back stage project to stir the creativity and imagination. This design is a bit of an exercise, maybe something came of it, maybe not, but as I consider the roster of custom designs there is a vacancy. There is single conventional, single pusher, twin, jet twin, jet tri, amphibian, open air, oversized, high speed, blindingly high speed..... but all fixed wing. On the page of sketches there are other drawings of other designs, time being what it is they may never get done but they have been envisioned. So, I thought. I considered over new years.. what would be truly new and revolutionary. As eclectic as some of my designs are in the first place, and as eclectic as rotorcraft and their consumers are... what if.

The what if of a Chandler design rotorcraft. A rotorcraft that is not a rotorcraft. I saw briefly a non-standard design with a notar tail, and it was svelte. I wont digress into what it was or how it was wrong but in looking at it, analyzing it, seeing why it was wrong on the direction the notar tail outlet was turning.. well, I went off on a little exploratory expedition into wikipedia and airliners net at the MD520 NOTAR. That is a handsome helicopter.. but.. it's still a *helicopter*. Those I have. 109, 430, 206, 135, 145, and a few I wont mention. Helicopter. hell-i-copter. hell.. it is. copter.. they are also. and sometimes the latter is what makes the former. copter-hell... or.. otherwise affectionately said "heli hate"

There's very few helicopters that genuinely take my attention and hold it. Usually it's not because of the "heli" component at all. that being the rotor system and flying a rotor system that has some form of carriage slung below said rotor system. Maybe it's an egg like shape (Eurocopter), maybe it's an exposed frame like structure, protruding engine, or otherwise gangly. I will be the first to admit that the only helicopters I garner affinity for are full bodied designs. Helicopters that have a full smoothly flowing body nose to tail. 109, 430, S76, ... among some others which also and still shall remain nameless. But those, 109, 430.. they to me.. at times, appear to be a svelte bodied aircraft, saddled with a rotor system.

Rotor system. was the riddle, for me, to avoid rotor system and look towards a form of tilt-wing, tilt-engine, or tilt-blade design. Obviously recently seen tilt-lift aircraft seen in AVATAR are seemingly popular, but I looked at those. I looked, and thought, and considered.. and the bottom line always comes down to *the bottom line*. Complexity kills. in more ways than one.

Consider for a minute the tilt ducted/shrouded lift fan craft in AVATAR [LINK] Well, to break it down to some simple assessments. could theoretically be single engine, transmission to a drive shaft out each side along the rotating pivot joint out to each side rotors. those rotors needing only blade gain control for collective+throttle and differential collective for roll. cyclic like control as well as yaw coming from hydraulically actuated pivoting of the hinged fan nacelles. The center body area being used for engine and transmission, as well as hydraulic components, as well as the structural build up to support and be lifted by offset hinged structures. the tail is for stability once there's airflow and there's a forward cockpit area, of course. fuselage center body area is marginally useful if at all. all flight is by the rotor system, no wings, and limited ETL airflow. the blunted edge of the rotor shrouds is a negative effect to forward airspeed... well,, anyway, bottom line is while sexy, it's a military form and function aircraft. little to no applicability for civil use. It's reasonable and has other virtues that lend themselves to military rotorcraft such as laterally protected rotors and general versatility greater even than the V22 Osprey tilt rotor. but, sorry to digress.. that design is out.

The cross section of helicopters over time, by any different manufacturer, is always quite utilitarian and bugly in form and design. There literally are as many different helicopter designs as there are eyes to look at them. In my vision, every single one of them is always utilitarian. From every larger than trainer helicopter that is corp/exec/charter or simply straight into service grade (police, ems, military). The trainers, are bugly and gangly. Nobody is traveling by Schweizer 300C, nobody is taking their wife/gf on a romantic sunset flight in an R-22. No one is taking a Bell 206 even for a flight to a vacation spot in the mountains. There are some, dont get me wrong that can lend themselves to what i've described. the H500/520 for one is an example.. but how many examples are there? Prices of helicopters being a capital limiting factor for consumer grade rotorcraft further narrows the field, while a 222/230 may fit the bill, a price tag of still ~$1M doesnt.

airliners.net photo search for type helicpter

After several pages of thumbing through these results, it appears that the Robinson R44 is essentially the Cirrus SR of helicopters. The Robinsons being the most routinely civil in their use, from private to civil utility (news, traffic, survey, etal). *whistles* paging through these pictures, the MD-500E always stands out as the sexiest one of the lot. there's other very beautiful helicopters, in fact every single one of them in it's own right is amazing, but always I yield to the design on the MD500/520. ... moving on.

now 10 pages into all-helicopter pictures. as has been said in car-sales "there's a butt for every seat" which goes hand in hand with a bartending saying "never say anything about the drink someone wants" or something like that. each design i'm sure appeals to someone, and what appeals to one shall not be said to be any other way. great. but for me... looks at my butt, and licks each helicopter I see... hmm.. not quite the right fit.... not quite the right flavor. so before I go on a small tangent about the three bears and the taste of porridge ... moving right along.

So, I stare at some paper.. pencil and eraser in hand, and I think. What would I fit in. What flavor makes me feel like I want to fly that. And I mean what design would make me *want* to fly that. What, and why, and well.. it just has to be ... inspired. So, the pencil starts moving.

Weeks prior I had started on a design with a small blunted open nose. not sure why, exploring a quasi spacecraft to aircraft design.. a quasi automotive form to aircraft design. with a faux blunting of the nose in profile but would be sharp and ducted and put that air somewhere useful. Well, fixed wing, high airflow airspeed designs really have a problem with bending air that far around a body such as a wide body car, so.. scratcch that. But that form and shape drawing sat on my desk for those same weeks after I said blah to it. But... considering.. the rotorcraft concept.. the same body form does work, to an extent. So.. the first drawing was done (on this page). blunted nose that can be inlet ducted, venting, lights.. can be .. well a lot of aircraft design convention can be suspended when designing a rotorcraft... or can it? ... or should it?

It seems that most helicopter designs do suspend 'aircraft' design attributes. Am I challenging ~50 years of rotorcraft design experience of others? no. Am I saying that the same that has always been done, shoudl always be done? quite the contrary. now 15 pages in, ~230 images out of 68,813 and i'm going through page after page after page of the same or similar. Tried true tested and conventional they are. utiitarian without a doubt, and in every case, outside of "vtol ga" for everyday use. It seems that most helicopter designs do suspend aircraft design attributes. Only the 222/230/430 have declared "wings" on the sides to augment lift, and in every case, helicopters are a body under a rotor system that gives way to a commercialized utility function. In the AW139 or S-92, how many seats are in there? How many are in the 109 or 430? well, try putting 6 passengers in a 6 passenger SEDAN and go on a trip greater than 15 minutes long. So... 'aircraft design attributes'....

Where does that bring me to. Well, maybe to designing an aircraft, a plausible aircraft, and then.. putting a rotor system on it. You can see it, I know you can, hold your thumb over the rotor and top cap. Why aircraft-design-attribute? well, i'll tell you why. efficiency for one, style and ergonomics for two. The ideal use of any aircraft is to travel, forward, between locations. While aircraft do it at the best speeds they can attain, often about 200 knots of local airspeed (varied true airspeed by altitude), rotorcraft in about every case have top speed limited by rotor blade Mu, or said more plainly, every helicopter has a top localized airpseed of about 150. I can point at a few that see 160, but .. by and large, advancing blade speed as a concern and retreating blade speed as a concern, ~150 is the average high yield for rotorcraft. That being the case, most helicopters seem to just give more power to overcome very blunt aerodynamics to get to that speed. Some helicopters have aerodynamic forms but are mostly teardrop bodies in varied shaping.

In 2005 I went to HAI, Heli Expo as a guest of STI. I remember walking around the exhibition and even have photos of it now somewhere. Those too would be nice to revisit I suppose. In order to not repeat what's already been done, even inadvertently, it'd be smart to review all available rotorcraft designs, at least produced, photographed, and in service ones. i'm sure there are just as many concept drawings by others out there, and I know Sikorsky has at least a couple concepts simmering. Not sure why I brought that up, more to reflect I guess on being there in person among so many and as variety as possible helicopters at such a show. TBH, I cant recall more than a couple that were memorable, some merely for sheer size or shininess factor. So, to continue ....

Am I considering designing something in the face of decades of established convention? maybe. Am I as a designer suggesting that design takes precedent over pilot/operation driven prerequisites and form convention? not actually. After the helicopters I have made, I have a finger on 'a pulse' of different designs, which ones are in relatively popular use, why I think that is, what design attributes they do have, and why, and where, and how. I have flown sometimes a numbing amount of heli simulator hours working on their systems, ap, performance, handling etal. countless landings, flares, etl in, etl out, do the hokey pokey and vomit outside the VRS.....

*laughs* well,, i've had a hand in, foot on, finger on a pulse (mine), eye on what is where, and sometimes what 'isnt' where in conventional helicopter designs, and I think... well.. I think I have a design that caters to that, and caters to me. I've always said, I am the first consumer for my outlet. I have to love what I make, else, there's no love, and there's no desire to do anything for it. Guess that's the way love works. The 109, has puny chin windows, meager overhead windows and a conventional forward and lateral view. The 430, puny overhead windows, meager to modest chin windows, and conventional forward and lateral view. 206/135/145, big view overhead, chin, forward and lateral. R22, bubble forward to overhead, no chin windows. Huges and Schwiezer, bubble that extends low as chins also. AS350, EC120/130.. modest to reasonable. anyway, similar remarks extend across the spectrum. and yet for me, as I fly them, and use them.. I have my feeling and opinion set for what view is valuable, how much of it is necessary, how much is unnecessary rival to design and target use. ok.. I think that horse is dead, and beat.. attempting to move on.

The-Tail-Rotor. in considering rotorcraft, the single most prominent achilles heel of every single one of them is the fragile tail rotor, shaft and transmission thereof. Loose tail rotor = youre toast. Not always, but it's an eye opening experiment to give yourself. There is a "fail a tail" challenge in the Flight Ops section that can really help drive home several faculties of helicopters, in the good, and the bad. How can a tail rotor fail you ask? tail rotor transmission failure, driveshaft issue, tail rotor hub transmission failure, or tail rotor itself failure. tail rotor strike, tail rotor object strike (bird or debris). I could dare say accidental inadvertent over torquing of tail rotor and drive assembly by abrupt tail rotor control input change, all in all, while as robust as it can be, it is a very fragile and exposed to hazards element. There is the physical harm element. There is the mechanical service requirements. There is the control system articulation complexity. you name it. and in the end. it is for a largely unidirectional anti-torque thrust item most used during low speed & high applied power time. While in forward motion, in helicopters, the vertical stabiizers in every case are offset such to naturally vane the tail behind the body, while applied power and resulting torque can be less than when at high applied power low speed & hover. So.. when is the tail rotor used, how much of the relative time, and for what amount of risk and hazard. While in forward flight, much above ~60+ the tail rotor is very lightly used, and at high cruise speed, 90-110-120.. may not be used at all beyond coordination like rudder may be.

...continues.
Here’s to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
User avatar
AADX
Administrator
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 12:13
Location: Great Falls, MT

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby AADX » 12 Jan 2011 17:23

... 40 pages into the airliners.net photos.. hum, drum, shrugs and continues flipping pages.

... 50 pages ...

tail rotors are such an easy go-to. I see and come back to the "pod & boom" design, Schweizer 300, Robinson, even looking at a CH-7 Kompress.. so easy to put a gear off the main shaft, tail rotor shaft, tail rotor gear and a couple spindly blades with increase/decrease control. voila.. you got yourself a choppah. recipie being, pilot pod, engine, fuel tanks, skids, main shaft, tail shaft, boom for said tail shaft, seemingly obligatory hstab & vstab that dont do anything, and whirly tail rotor butter knives.. :(

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Héli-Union/Schweizer-300C-(269C-1)/1829999/M/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Helispor ... 1829998/M/

anything else there's a boom that is somewhat body formed, or at least body extended, but in every case... *sighs* makes me wonder, are there people who like flying things that are akin to birds, while there are others that take to flying things akin to bugs. It can be outright novelty that helicopters fly at all, and it ends up coming back to engines, rotor system and then some form of utilitarian body attached to the former.

now this is just funny.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Revoluti ... 1827789/M/

I know what you're going to say, what about Rotorway, what about AS, what about EC, or the other list of bodied helicopters... and I think what i'm going to come back with is. rotor-blade-helicopters. they all to me have the same feeling of bodied aircraft attached to blade system. to me, few to none feel fluently fit together as one aircraft.... rotorcraft.. rotary wing aircraft.

helicopter, chopper, copter. body + engine/rotor blade system. enough body to house the requisite functionality, plus engine transmission system, plus ground contact faculty. = helicopter. Even some of the genuinely brand new models, are take offs from pre-existing form and pre-existing models.

I think one of my next stops along this exploratory expedition will be to the NTSB results for rotorcraft incidents. For now though, i'll insert that later when I go do that lookup.

Anyway, .... 60 pages along, and one after another, just pages of the same thing. ~900 pictures.. out of 68K.. i've looked across most of a thousand pictures and i'm gripped with disinterest. I could vary the search and go by brand, or nation. I've looked at 1.3% of the all-helicopter pictures at airliners net. I do think that the popular brands, models may flood out some of the rarer items that may be hiding in there. I know there's one Ukranian model in there somewhere i've yet seen on this expedition.. but for now.. i'll stop at 60 pages and continue my writing.

so where was I, tail rotor. to attend to the issues I've said above, there's a couple alternatives to conventional tail rotor blades. There's Fenestron and NOTAR. Several brands use Fenestron, Eurocopter largely and Agusta has gone that way with the 155. it solves tail rotor strike, tail rotor contact hazard, blade fraility somewhat, noise issues, and relieving the tail rotor of any function while at high cruise speed with an oversized vstab and fen shroud area that assists in tail control by airspeed airflow. Fenestron still is subject to tail rotor drive shaft, gearbox, and fragile blade movement concerns, any object strike (bird or debris) can dramatically adversely affect or destroy it, and still loose tail control in the process. I believe that Fenestron is the most effective hybrid of having tail rotor authority, and attending the risks and hazards about it, in a pretty acceptable balance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenestron

NOTAR on the other hand, largely pioneered by MD/Huges starting with the 520 NOTAR, then to the 600, and now 900 Explorer, uses two technologies at the same time, the notar system and the Coandă effect. As implemented in the MD aircraft it's very effective and serves all the needs and issues for why you'd deviate from tail rotor assembly in the first place. Namely the hazards. The predominate use of the 520N, 600N and 900 MD's appears to be in use in EMS, Sheriff, Border Patrol, and other industrialized uses where there will always be contact hazards for the tail. So safety and hazard abatement being primary driving motivations there, those helicopters have NOTAR and those are the uses they're in.

Considering those two tail control options. I have to say, for GA personal use, private airfields, general audience proximity... I have to say that NOTAR is the safest and most effective option . Consider for a minute, your life while flying a helicopter, then consider a helicopter parked literally in a T-tiedown spot alongside other aircraft and ramp traffic. Your own life in your hands, perhaps that of your loved ones, friends or family onboard.. would you leave your with tail-rotor helicopter parked on the ramp subject to unknown affects on the tail rotor assembly? Accidents happen, but also 'dont be a statistic'. So, for my design, I have elected NOTAR w/o Coandă_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coandă_effect

http://www.youngcopter.com
*smiles* well look at that, wankel engine... omg.. who else has turbo wankel in everything (hint hint nudge nudge), V tail, and selected NOTAR. IBD :D This one, also going the direction of the sexy MD500 style. I have to say, I approve. *But, it's awfully small. I'll say, a scale or two lower than where I'd be, but definately thumbs up. 180hp, 100kt, 1400lb. almost fits within LSA. it's a good design, could stand to be one scale larger, but then it might be outside of kit/kitbuild range.

ok, back on track. the thought process began with directed engine exhaust thrust. over the years there is always debate about the exhaust-thrust component for aircraft. while valid, it's also debateable due to velocities. lb of thrust is not equal across all speeds, there's a point where it becomes nil relative to ambient relative to exit speed vs travel speed. but back to helicopters. for a lateral thrusting agent exhaust gas thrust is valid, comes with it's own set of issues in particular being heat, conveying hot exhaust gas down the length of a tail boom/structure, protecting body from heat effects and then simply is it enough. Basically put a ~15-20' long single exhaust pipe turned 90° at the end, and rev up the engine. you will get lateral thrust, and you will get turning movement from the thrust point at such an arm away from the center point. but.. exhaust gas thrust is relative to engine airflow. no engine, no airflow, but also no torque to counter, but no control in any form either. so, best left to conventionally vent exhaust, or hybrid mix it into cool air in lieu of the additive Coandă_effect.

NOTAR design has an internal fan, or almost albeit propeller inside the fuselage, inside the tail, engine/rotor driven so there is still taking a gear off the main shaft/transmission for the fan that gives the airflow for notar thrust. that internal fan is fully ducted for no tip loss, and can be smaller down to the diameter of the tail boom and have very high rpm that can come off the engine directly without reduction, or less reduction.. That though being a consumed energy to turn that fan, to produce from nil to maximum thrust from it... all of that should be applied. The size of that internal tail control fan can be varied in the design phase of a real aircraft to get the most effective and efficient blend of size, rpm, blade control effectiveness, airflow, airflow speed, airflow pressure that then comes out the tail outlet for use in anti-torque and..

.. well, the 'and'. thinking about something like the Carter Copter and select Gyrocopters, where there is a propulsive element for forward movement, in my concept above a prescribed speed, the airflow from the tail control fan/propeller would be directed straight out the back as propulsive thrust letting the vertical stabilizers handle yaw control, tail control, with broad authority of airflow over aircraft size tail control surfaces. the full effects and thrust from the fan that produces the airflow for notar anti-torque lateral thrust, being directed straight out the tail as propulsive ducted fan thrust. What that does is two things. Relieves forward airspeed thrust/power required on the main rotor system, and makes it easier and more efficient to achieve higher, up to limit, cruise speed with less required power than for applied power to rotor system alone to achieve that same speed. So at the same power, a higher cruise speed can be reached, or at the same cruise speed, a lower power is required for it. either way has the making of increased efficiency. Slowing below the prescribed speed, ducted airflow becomes directed to the lateral outlet and notar lateral thrust anti-torque control is restored below the effective authority airspeed for the vertical staiblizers/rudder/yaw control. All that said, at any time, in the tail control airbox, airflow can be laterally directed relative to strong yaw control input.

so, that's my vision for tail control, on my heli-concept.

...continues.
Here’s to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
User avatar
AADX
Administrator
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 12:13
Location: Great Falls, MT

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby capnsully » 06 Feb 2011 00:40

Too much to read right now, will grab a cup of hot chokkie and enjoy the read! Look forward to seeing her come to life!
Simon W
Melbourne, Australia
Core i7 920; GTX275
Keyboard; Mouse;
http://www.youtube.com/user/id5556
www.xplane10.wordpress.com
capnsully
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 01:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby Rick McWilliams » 12 Aug 2011 14:45

I think that there are some great fuselage style possibilities for an intermeshing rotor system like KMax. The cabin could accomodate 10 passengers in luxury. A back door would have no tail rotor danger. The useful load would be about 4000 lbs. These machines are very quiet.
User avatar
Rick McWilliams
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 12:52

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby AADX » 12 Aug 2011 16:28

personally, I really don't like intermeshed rotors. I'm not going for anything like that.

the concept here is basically a NOTAR directed thrust outflow tail control. above a certain speed, that outflow is directed aft for propulsive thrust, or shut and let the larger stabilizers in the rear handle tail control at sufficient airflow / control authority, airspeeds.

my concept design shown here is for personal transport. not utility, or heavy loading. It may or may not ever get done. but if it does. it's a decent size single rotor, with 'jet' propulsive thrust anti-torque, without tail rotor or tail rotor shaft, or tail rotor issues.

sorry, kinda fried today after lots of errands and running around, for this reply being so dry. :geek:
Here’s to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
User avatar
AADX
Administrator
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 12:13
Location: Great Falls, MT

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby AADX » 03 Oct 2011 00:30

20111002-1.jpg

20111002-2.jpg

20111002-3.jpg


the cylinder in the scene is ~6.1', 1.85m height (tall_pilot) size. at the bottom of the cylinder represents ground line.

NTR air box not modelled yet, but end of the tail is semi finished as the outflow of the air that goes into the tail control air box.

main fuselage body still in progress of designing into the mesh seam and divisions lines. window regions, doors, and access panels. I think I'm going toward two primary doors, not four. every rear_seat helicopter I can think of has the second row doors and to me it makes it look like a "four door" and destroys the sport_craft design line. I may put in second set doors, but on my terms only. So, think like most two door GA aircraft. Cirrus SR, Lancair, Cessna, Velocity.. There IS a sizeable rear seat area, but accessible through the front/primary doors

I am also still going with retractable_skids. I'm not sure exactly of the location and design, But I don't want wheels under there. Almost all other full bodied helicopters have retractable wheels. A109, B222/230/430, S76, .. etc. I think that in this case. for this scale and GA grade. I want to say that adding steerable retracting nosewheel, retracting main wheels, with load bearing suspension and linkages to support the weight and compression, plus gear doors... in reality, as it is, I think that adds just that much more that would push this GA helicopter up out of it's target demographic. That said however, exposed fixed skids.. and it would look that much more typically conventional. think Bell_230/430 with skids, on a primarily wheeled full body design. they look bolt-on and destroy sleekness. There is the shaped and formed sleek curved skids on EC-120, EC-135 Hermes, and Gazelle I think. shrugs. That's probably the most sensible, but this right here and now is not the place for the *most* sensibility. That said because "retractable skids" is not_sensible, but I think.. they provide some advantages of suspension_strut wheels, while giving sure footed landing stability of fixed skids.

So, retractable skids. think about it this way. for lack of a better description. a long ski plank on either side, with center hinged extension struts that have electro-hydraulically actuated retract/extend actuators that lower the skid planks by moving the spring and gas strut suspension linkage along a track that lowers the skids. In the extended & lowered position, the spring & strut suspension portions would be visible, the skids would be about 12-18" below the bottom of the aircraft and extended out from their retracted position laterally. For the sake of the prototype concept aircraft I'll gladly go ahead with more complex retractable_skid situation for cool factor. I want to see it. The way I see it then is sprung loaded skids that have a moderate width flat skid bottom foot, on a soft suspension strut system that can make every touchdown non_jarring, absorbing the weight of the settling helicopter the same way suspension&wheeled designs can. the suspension strut skids permit for any ship attitude touchdown without jarring solid-to-solid airframe-to-ground contact. Settling the aircraft weight down onto the retractable skids would have a visible compression of weight settling it's load onto them. and like with any "independent suspension" setup. if there were a surface deviation at any one point, it would be absorbed by the compression of the skid strut at that point.

the retractable skids, may or may not have recessed skid section gear doors. just not sure. still thinking it through. in the retracted position, the aircraft is clean. a primary concern for this design is aerodynamic efficiency as well as being stylish. The style was first, and the desire to have a clean un-molested aircraft.. that is a helicopter. That brings me back to one reason for retractable skids, not having wire-catching hazard with skids. I woudl say that optional equipment (in reality) would be pop up retractable wire cutters, one or both for main rotor wire-cutter-guard. secondary chin one that could lower at the same time as the retractable skids..

I have also been thinking of where to put landing lights.

I also want to experiment with elevator/rudder flight control surfaces on the Y tail, and when it comes time to start the acf, i'll be interested to see how I can setup the tail control so that it emulates what I have imagined here. I know that at above a certain in flight forward airspeed, airflow over the tail surfaces control the tail.

As far as revisiting the theory of this concept. It is a "personal air vehicle" Helicopter. Same as a Cirrus SR, Cessna 182T, Velocity XL, Diamond '40, etc, etc, etc. Owner operated private personal aircraft. Not for commercial operation beyond basic tasks that could be handled by the fixed wing counterpart aircraft similarly. Personal air travel, personal air commuting, point-to-point, base-to-base.

By being in this GA genre range, it establishes the baseline statistics for necessary power, appropriate amount of fuel, and then useful load, and then surplus power for performance. Right this minute, i'm still deciding what engine type to go with. I'm seriously leaning toward stealing an engine from the LFX production line for a water cooled, turbocharged, intercooled, rotary wankel, internal combustion flex_fuel engine. The same engine right out of the LFX that is an R26, four-rotor, high boost turbocharged wankel making 700hp at maximum yield. The reason for this I say gasoline based internal combustion engine instead of turbine is.... turbines have much more sensitive and finer tolerances for temperatures and load strain (torque). be it the lowly basic Bell 206, or twin turbine 109, 230, 430, 135, 145, etc. Turbine equals expensive. to acquire, to use, to service/maintain, and risk of damage from over-limit use. An example here being the Bell 206, single turbine that has a baseline applied power in the 270-370hp range (max continuous B3-L3). When using the turbine engines, not exceeding TIT, N1, or Torque is critical. When using internal combustion engines, there's much less specific hazard to the engine. Turbines are much more reliable than "piston recip" ic gasoline engines.... which, is why the rotary wankel engine is the ideal choice. I think.

http://www.rotaryeng.net
http://www.rotaryaviation.com

My concern with this however is the sustained high_rpm tied to sustained rotor rpm. In aircraft like the LFX with variable pitch propeller, that in effect is like a reduction gear relative to the air, increase the blade angle and lower the rpm of the engine/prop, let the boost pressure work. In a helicopter installation, there is a narrow range of main rotor rpm, which presents a narrow range of engine rpm that can be used. Running the engine at 6000rpm sustained lets say, at max output, max rotor & engine rpm, lets say up to 7000-7200rpm, but ideally, slow it down to the slower rpm and pull in more collective... or in this case.. increase the blade angle on the internal propeller that thrusts straight out the tail for propulsive thrust. letting the main rotor have a finer collective angle, getting propulsion from the tail thrust, letting the main rotor be lift primarily and thrust secondary. Anyway. the benefit of rotary wankel is rotation/revolution/sustained_boost, not banging cylinders, applying that sustained and readily available power to the drive line. I have privately been working on another helicopter for the last few years that enjoys this same benefit. generous gas engine power, without sensitive use limits (temp, n1, torque)

What that means, in engine selection, is concerns for air intake (engine) and then air intake (tail air system), exhaust. (though I have honestly considered putting exhaust into the tail air outflow (mixed in with tail system intake air for cooling and exhaust gas dillution). I've been thinking about where to put engine_air_intake. a scoop, an inset, and where.

Interior/Cockpit Concept. 2+2, or 2+2.5. Think, LFX-HELI. I do want to do something dramatically different and unique with the dash/panel/instrument area. I really want to re-think what needs to be there in a helicopter. to give it the most full feature capabilities without having every ever-luvvin thing on the panel. I want to have a mix of analog needled instruments for instant-reference things, and digital_screen displays for situational awareness/orientation. I also will be making some unique specific seats only to this helicopter*. I want this helicopter to be as comfortable starting up your sports sedan, or sports aircraft (LFX/or/LJX), and taking off. I want it to be primarily VFR, with IFR capability, but PAV use. What do I mean by PAV use? I've covered this on other aircraft with the TERR, terrain following altitude mode. TERR elevation control, flying following common routes, above known roads/interstates/freeways, etc. VFR/IFR direct and enroute flying is perfectly reasonable, but most helicopter flight is VFR, by eye, by visual. So my version of PAV is semi_instrument. If in IMC, IFR meteo conditions, file and fly IFR. if in VFR conditions, to fly PAV with instrument assisted routing. gps roadway database, automated terrain avoidance elevation. In an aircraft with ability to land at rest-stops, land at any point along the way.

For storage, trailering. I think... 3 blade rotors. Not 2, and not 4. Yes, 3. Why 3? Because, with the rotor head designed such, one blade stays straight back, two other blades swing back into a secure blade holder for storage, trailering, etc. Blades that fold back and are retained by a blade holder are very typical in RC helicopters. I saw one recently that shows the alternating blades of a 4 blade that swing into a parallel to the other blades position for storage. Problem with that is that there would still be two blades going forward at their length. RC helicopters are typically only two blades which when in operation centrifugal force holds them out. while valid, that makes for floppy blades when slowing them down to a stop. So that doesn't work full size, however an unlocked blade hinge that can turn for folding back storage, I think is a key. Wheel it into a garage, into a hangar, easily semi-trailer it. That's what I think.

While talking about main rotor. I've checked it and it has plus and minus 16 degrees of rotor disk pitch clearance. at the same maximum limit, +/- 16° laterally clears also. whole rotor disc systems never move that far, most diagrams will indicate up to about 10-12 degrees, 5-8 degrees of coning. (numbers off the top of my head). I think a boom-strike is a major risk liability so I checked it. I'm comfortable with 16 degrees.

I would LOVE to get some heli specific automated flight systems. Based on other_than_reality (game) helicopter functioning. Call it "semi-automatic" helicopter flying modes. In my concept, would have Piezoelectric gyroscope stabilization, 3 axis. And it would have fixed altitude stabilization. Set the altitude hold (while hand flying), the aircraft would automatically adjust power and collective to sustain that altitude, in effect, pitch forward results in increasing speed. pull back results in slowing, while system maintains the same altitude. I'd say that would be on a toggle engage_on_this_altitude, disengage. That behavior is in one game I've seen. Another is similar (in GTA) which is hands off results in returns to stabilized hover. Without it, manual control is perfectly stable. With it, convenient and comfortable.

The motive for that is "mental margin". Ability to stay ahead of the ball, on the ball, and let the aircraft provide mental margin. What is mental margin. It is the ability for the pilot to complete all tasks, computations, and activities .... without coming up short based on the required mental activity load. It is very easy for pilots to get behind the ball, incapable of completing all necessary cognitive tasks. When that happens there is CFIT (controlled flight into terrain), as the pilot while fully under control has missed something. position. altitude. attitude. heading. timing. you name it.. behind the ball and something was missed. CFIT is a capital issue in single pilot flying hazards/risks. The more things there are to provide pilot mental load, the worse behind the ball things can get. The more things that are longhand, manually calculated, mentally computed, manual systems. That is why pilot recurrent training and proficiency is paramount. Exercise that muscle, the noodle between ones ears. Even then however there is simply the margin that one has, relative to what the regular workload is, and what surplus capacity is available, up to when that is run out. Having an aircraft with assistive systems only expands that margin. If that system fails, you're back to standard capacity and margin. if it's available, then the pilots safety margins are much better.

What this helicopter concept does for me, is gives me a new place to explore new modeling techniques. try new things, make a helicopter that I like. to make a helicopter that I like, that no one else can undermine. As i've mentioned, there are (at least) three other real world helicopters in progress over years. They're unique, never before done by anyone. I'm not saying boo as to what they are. History tells me that when I say what I'm working on, others feel the need to make them also. Anyway, yes, there are three other helicopters in progress, in addition to AADX HELI CONCEPT (as yet unnamed specifically). In my own, I want to do it MY WAY, similar to how I have LFX/LJX/et_al that are my aircraft, that don't have to conform to what anything else is like. I can't tell you how tiring that is to get nagged about duplicating other pre-existing things. To be a designer and just used to be a duplicator. I know some people love duplicating I guess. oooh, made this just like that. Well, I'm a designer. No one ever asks Pininfarina, Ferdinand Porsche or Luigi Colani to replicate a '78 Oldsmobile. No one asks Burt Rutan to replicate a '81 Cessna 210. So what you folks have here is a Jason Chandler, designer.

I do wish that someday people might appreciate that.

Unique original designs. xJoker, xSeawing, xSeaking, x3600, LFX, LJX

Not including the simpler concepts of yesteryear, x1500, x450M, x700, x470B, x470MD, x250TP, x250TR, x125TP, x450TJ
or form factor variation concepts, xBONE, xMIG, x512, x510,...
... anyway, putting imagination into form since 1996. Should i list those too. xPepper, xPheish, xKnat, ... One of these days everything I've ever made will be in one contiguous list to put my service into perspective. Sorry to digress, I went tangent.


This helicopter concept will be one of my greatest creations. I want to revisit all of my current generation models and evolve them forward with updated methods, textures, bakes and yada yada. I fully believe in them and their validity. Just as I'm constantly in LFX/LJX... I forsee some constantly_in_this_helicopter situations coming up. I could say.. please, feel free to submit your comments here about it.

otherwise I guess. everyone wants conventional brands, conventional form, that any duplicator can make.

ok. at this point. I think I'm rambled out on dreams and wishes. If you've read all this, congratulations... and thank you.

:ugeek:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Here’s to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
User avatar
AADX
Administrator
 
Posts: 3696
Joined: 20 Feb 2009 12:13
Location: Great Falls, MT

Re: AADX HELI CONCEPT 2011

Postby aquila1004 » 03 Oct 2011 11:36

Well, I like the looks of it! Nice clean lines, almost right out of science fiction. I'm definitely curious to see how you get the single-rotor problem solved in XP, I don't think I've seen that done before. Can't wait to try it out!

I for one love flying "what-if" concepts like yours in XP. The ekranoplans, LFX, LJX, and xMiG in particular I've put a lot of miles on. I just think those planes would be REALLY COOL if they were built in real life, and it's fun to imagine what it would be like by flying them in XP. I don't think I'm the only one either; the market for these kinds of things may be smaller than that for "duplicates" but it's definitely not non-existant.


TH
User avatar
aquila1004
Flight Specialist
 
Posts: 223
Joined: 15 Jul 2009 14:56
Location: 39ºN, 77ºW

Next

Return to Skunkworks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests