Honest question?

[Cam]

Why do Hughes tail rotor blades cost $10,000+ (Barnstormers)

Cam.

[Bart]

Because people will (have to) pay it.

Bart

>Cam wrote:
>
> Why do Hughes tail rotor blades cost $10,000+ (Barnstormers)
>
> Cam.

[Cam]

I presume that's $US aswell, the best part of $20,000 NZ. You could buy
ten good Toyota Corola's for that over here.
When are the Japs gonna start building helis?

Cam.

[Peter Seddon]

When the market is more than a hundred thousand units per annum?


"Cam" > wrote in message
...
> I presume that's $US aswell, the best part of $20,000 NZ. You could buy
> ten good Toyota Corola's for that over here.
> When are the Japs gonna start building helis?
>
> Cam.
>
>

[Dave Jackson]

Prouty wrote ~ "The overall airplane lift-to-drag ratio can be 10 to 30,
depending on the configuration, whereas the maximum a helicopter can do is 4
to 6."

Cam wrote "When are the Japs gonna start building helis?"

Me writes ~ When they brake away from the 60 year Western rotorcraft mindset
and improve the L/D ratio, by;
- Abolishing the wasteful tail rotor,
- Providing Active Twist Blades, which can optimize the L/D ratio at all
locations within the disk,
- Providing larger, slower rotors, plus a horizontal thruster.

Dave J


"Cam" > wrote in message
...
> I presume that's $US aswell, the best part of $20,000 NZ. You could buy
> ten good Toyota Corola's for that over here.
> When are the Japs gonna start building helis?
>
> Cam.
>
>

[Steve R.]

"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:ZxJXc.229824$J06.58978@pd7tw2no...
> Me writes ~ When they brake away from the 60 year Western rotorcraft
> mindset
> and improve the L/D ratio, by;
> - Abolishing the wasteful tail rotor,
> - Providing Active Twist Blades, which can optimize the L/D ratio at
> all
> locations within the disk,
> - Providing larger, slower rotors, plus a horizontal thruster.
>
> Dave J
>

Abolishing the tail rotor? On a single rotor helicopter, that'll be an
interesting exercise. MD does have the Notar but it's still putting a fair
amoung of power into pressurizing that tail boom. There is no free lunch.

There are the multi rotor machines with counterrotating rotor systems
(tandom and coaxial) but if that were such a "big" advantage over the
conventional single main rotor / tail rotor configuration, I'd have thought
there'd be a LOT more of them out there by now.

Active Twist rotor bades? That's an interesting concept. It's not one I've
heard of before. I've love to see the engineering specs on them! :-)

Larger, slower rotors? It's been done. It works Ok but you run into the
problem of needing room to swing the blades.

Horizontal pusher system? It's also been done. Now we're talking a
compound aircraft, or at least the beginnings of one, and an aircraft that's
a LOT more complicated and expensive.

I think that the modern helicopter designs that are flying today, are flying
because they've proven themselves to be amoung the best compromises that can
be made between utility, cost, and function. They offer relatively good
speed, point to point, for short to medium distances (I'm thinking <500
miles), and can take of and land virtually any place there's enough room to
swing the rotors in.

If you need faster, or greater distances, it's time to go fixed wing.

JMO!
Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Dave Jackson]

Steve wrote; "Abolishing the tail rotor? On a single rotor helicopter,
that'll be an interesting exercise"

Me writes; Agreed. Laterally located twin main rotors will be required.
Interestingly, Sikorsky proposed the following single rotor concept 2 years
ago, but its feasibility is questionable. ref.
http://www.UniCopter.com/1281.html
__________________

Steve wrote; "There are the multi rotor machines with counterrotating rotor
systems (tandem and coaxial) but if that were such a "big" advantage over
the conventional single main rotor / tail rotor configuration, I'd have
thought there'd be a LOT more of them out there by now."

Me writes; The tandem still lives, in fact, Boeing has proposed a
side-by-side for future heavy lift craft.
Unquestionably, the two best and most promising rotorcraft configurations at
the dawn of helicopter flight were the Side-by-side and the Intermeshing.
Then Germany lost the war. Additional reasons can be found at;
http://www.synchrolite.com/B280.html
________________

Steve wrote; "Active Twist rotor blades? That's an interesting concept. It's
not one I've heard of before. I've love to see the engineering specs on
them! :-)"

Me humbly submits; http://www.UniCopter.com/1101.html
________________

Steve wrote; "Larger, slower rotors? It's been done. It works Ok but you run
into the
problem of needing room to swing the blades."

Me apologizes. Should have said; ' significantly larger chord'.
________________

The tilt-rotor may shoulder its way into a market located between that of
the helicopter and that of the airplane. But, I strongly believe that a
potentially much larger market exists for helicopters, if the conceptual
focus can be redirected toward laterally located twin main rotor
configurations.

IMHO, Igor took helicopters in the wrong direction.


Dave J.





"Steve R." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:ZxJXc.229824$J06.58978@pd7tw2no...
> > Me writes ~ When they brake away from the 60 year Western rotorcraft
> > mindset
> > and improve the L/D ratio, by;
> > - Abolishing the wasteful tail rotor,
> > - Providing Active Twist Blades, which can optimize the L/D ratio at
> > all
> > locations within the disk,
> > - Providing larger, slower rotors, plus a horizontal thruster.
> >
> > Dave J
> >
>
> Abolishing the tail rotor? On a single rotor helicopter, that'll be an
> interesting exercise. MD does have the Notar but it's still putting a
fair
> amoung of power into pressurizing that tail boom. There is no free lunch.
>
> There are the multi rotor machines with counterrotating rotor systems
> (tandom and coaxial) but if that were such a "big" advantage over the
> conventional single main rotor / tail rotor configuration, I'd have
thought
> there'd be a LOT more of them out there by now.
>
> Active Twist rotor bades? That's an interesting concept. It's not one
I've
> heard of before. I've love to see the engineering specs on them! :-)
>
> Larger, slower rotors? It's been done. It works Ok but you run into the
> problem of needing room to swing the blades.
>
> Horizontal pusher system? It's also been done. Now we're talking a
> compound aircraft, or at least the beginnings of one, and an aircraft
that's
> a LOT more complicated and expensive.
>
> I think that the modern helicopter designs that are flying today, are
flying
> because they've proven themselves to be amoung the best compromises that
can
> be made between utility, cost, and function. They offer relatively good
> speed, point to point, for short to medium distances (I'm thinking <500
> miles), and can take of and land virtually any place there's enough room
to
> swing the rotors in.
>
> If you need faster, or greater distances, it's time to go fixed wing.
>
> JMO!
> Fly Safe,
> Steve R.
>
>

[Steve R.]

Hi Dave,

Wow, thanks for the links! I've not heard of that one. The "active twist
rotor blade" concept is really cool. The math is probably way beyond me but
I think I understand "some" of the intent of the design. It'll be
interesting to see if they can actually implement it.

You may be right about Igor, but considering that the man was trying to
design and aircraft that's hadn't successfully exited yet AND learn to fly
it all at the same time, ALL while using technology and materials that most
of us wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole these days ----- I think he did
pretty good! :-D

Fly Safe,
Steve R.


"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:q8NXc.231225$J06.109672@pd7tw2no...
> Steve wrote; "Abolishing the tail rotor? On a single rotor helicopter,
> that'll be an interesting exercise"
>
> Me writes; Agreed. Laterally located twin main rotors will be required.
> Interestingly, Sikorsky proposed the following single rotor concept 2
> years
> ago, but its feasibility is questionable. ref.
> http://www.UniCopter.com/1281.html
> __________________
>
> Steve wrote; "There are the multi rotor machines with counterrotating
> rotor
> systems (tandem and coaxial) but if that were such a "big" advantage over
> the conventional single main rotor / tail rotor configuration, I'd have
> thought there'd be a LOT more of them out there by now."
>
> Me writes; The tandem still lives, in fact, Boeing has proposed a
> side-by-side for future heavy lift craft.
> Unquestionably, the two best and most promising rotorcraft configurations
> at
> the dawn of helicopter flight were the Side-by-side and the Intermeshing.
> Then Germany lost the war. Additional reasons can be found at;
> http://www.synchrolite.com/B280.html
> ________________
>
> Steve wrote; "Active Twist rotor blades? That's an interesting concept.
> It's
> not one I've heard of before. I've love to see the engineering specs on
> them! :-)"
>
> Me humbly submits; http://www.UniCopter.com/1101.html
> ________________
>
> Steve wrote; "Larger, slower rotors? It's been done. It works Ok but you
> run
> into the
> problem of needing room to swing the blades."
>
> Me apologizes. Should have said; ' significantly larger chord'.
> ________________
>
> The tilt-rotor may shoulder its way into a market located between that of
> the helicopter and that of the airplane. But, I strongly believe that a
> potentially much larger market exists for helicopters, if the conceptual
> focus can be redirected toward laterally located twin main rotor
> configurations.
>
> IMHO, Igor took helicopters in the wrong direction.
>
>
> Dave J.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Steve R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
>> news:ZxJXc.229824$J06.58978@pd7tw2no...
>> > Me writes ~ When they brake away from the 60 year Western rotorcraft
>> > mindset
>> > and improve the L/D ratio, by;
>> > - Abolishing the wasteful tail rotor,
>> > - Providing Active Twist Blades, which can optimize the L/D ratio at
>> > all
>> > locations within the disk,
>> > - Providing larger, slower rotors, plus a horizontal thruster.
>> >
>> > Dave J
>> >
>>
>> Abolishing the tail rotor? On a single rotor helicopter, that'll be an
>> interesting exercise. MD does have the Notar but it's still putting a
> fair
>> amoung of power into pressurizing that tail boom. There is no free
>> lunch.
>>
>> There are the multi rotor machines with counterrotating rotor systems
>> (tandom and coaxial) but if that were such a "big" advantage over the
>> conventional single main rotor / tail rotor configuration, I'd have
> thought
>> there'd be a LOT more of them out there by now.
>>
>> Active Twist rotor bades? That's an interesting concept. It's not one
> I've
>> heard of before. I've love to see the engineering specs on them! :-)
>>
>> Larger, slower rotors? It's been done. It works Ok but you run into the
>> problem of needing room to swing the blades.
>>
>> Horizontal pusher system? It's also been done. Now we're talking a
>> compound aircraft, or at least the beginnings of one, and an aircraft
> that's
>> a LOT more complicated and expensive.
>>
>> I think that the modern helicopter designs that are flying today, are
> flying
>> because they've proven themselves to be amoung the best compromises that
> can
>> be made between utility, cost, and function. They offer relatively good
>> speed, point to point, for short to medium distances (I'm thinking <500
>> miles), and can take of and land virtually any place there's enough room
> to
>> swing the rotors in.
>>
>> If you need faster, or greater distances, it's time to go fixed wing.
>>
>> JMO!
>> Fly Safe,
>> Steve R.
>>
>>
>
>