Curiosity of the first order

[Stuart Fields]

I'm quite curious about this groups response to an announcement of a new
magazine about experimental helicopters. There has been essentially no
response. I'm sure surprised. Is there a basis for this group that I'm
unaware of that would create a total lack of curiosity or comment? I'm at
a loss to understand this.

[Hennie Roets]

Stu,
This group is not as active as what it used to be. There are also
people in this
group that think we have a death wish flying experimental rotorcraft. They
do not
think that a good helicopter can be developed without spending billions of
dollars.
I just got the idea but might be completely wrong.

Hennie

"Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
> I'm quite curious about this groups response to an announcement of a new
> magazine about experimental helicopters. There has been essentially no
> response. I'm sure surprised. Is there a basis for this group that I'm
> unaware of that would create a total lack of curiosity or comment? I'm
> at
> a loss to understand this.
>
>

[Dave Jackson]

The bad news.

Most modes of transportation have changed relatively little during the past
70 years. For example, the automobile had, and it still has; four wheels, an
enclosed heated passenger compartment, a reciprocating engine and a steering
wheel. In addition, the speed limit has not changed, whereas the speed limit
of the computer doubles every two years. In part, this slow development is
because the transportation industry is a mature one.

This is inability to improve is particularly apparent in the field of
rotorcraft. Boeing has stated " The Chinook was developed in the late 1950s,
less than a decade after the B-52 bomber entered service. Since then, two
follow-on bombers have been fielded, but no new heavy-lift helicopter."

This lack of significant advancement in rotorcraft has resulted in a
diminishing number of people being involved in rotorcraft R & D. In
addition, this small collection of people is thinned out even further by
their diversity of interests. Jokingly, at one extreme are the few whose
'research consist of discovering whether a NC nut or a NF nut is used on a
NF bolt. At the other extreme are the few whose research consists of
modeling the blade vortex in 5D.

This reduced activity at the various levels of rotorcraft development
manifests itself in many ways. One of these is in the peripheral support
industries, such as publications. How many times can the same ideas be
regurgitated?


The good news;

I am convinced that the field of rotorcraft has fallen behind that of other
modes of transportation. There is an opportunity to catch-up, but, it will
only come about when its leaders step out of the box. This box is the
mindset that has embraced the abominable tail-rotor and excluded the more
efficient latterly-located-twin-main-rotors.

Frustrated defense departments and some industry leaders are now starting to
look in this direction. They are also looking at very-light rotorcraft, to
be used as UAVs,

There is absolute no reason why the recreational/experimental side of
rotorcraft cannot experience a developing and exciting future by moving in
the same direction.


This posting may appear to be self-serving, but there is no commercial
interest on my part.

Dave J. http://www.UniCopter.com




"Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
> I'm quite curious about this groups response to an announcement of a new
> magazine about experimental helicopters. There has been essentially no
> response. I'm sure surprised. Is there a basis for this group that I'm
> unaware of that would create a total lack of curiosity or comment? I'm
at
> a loss to understand this.
>
>

[Kathryn & Stuart Fields]

Dave: Thanks for your response. I've begun to think that I'm talking about
enjoying bigamy to a group of Catholic priests. Your Joke about the
research of discovery of the NC nut vs. the NF bolt hit my funny bone. I
will use that somewhere in the magazine in the future.
To your hate/dislike for the tail rotor. I don't know whether you have a
helicopter or not or if you maintain one, but I'm convinced that I can't
afford a twin rotor ship. The blades for my Safari are over $5,000/ set.
The transmission, and it is much simpler than what will be required for a
twin rotor ship is around $15,000. The Rotor heads, the control linkage???
Having just finished balancing the tail rotor and main rotor blades on my
Safari, my imagination runs away with me when I start thinking about trying
to balance two main rotors at the same time with the mutual interference
possible. How do the big boys with lots of $$$ do it?? There is a two seat
tandem rotor helo being developed for the kit market in Canada. Their price
guess is over $100K. There will be few that can afford this toy. All these
high prices for a helicopter that basically is a recreation device that
can't earn it's keep. We are constantly barraged by people looking for a
more affordable, otherwise they can't join in, ship. I think that the
research we need is both into ways to drive the costs of the present
configurations down, and exploring some of the advantages displayed in
things like the Cheyenne.
My "Research" is into the cause and elimination of the 2/rev vibrations in a
two bladed helicopter. With my limited funds, my progress is very slow. I
am, however, mentally engaged in the project and being an engineer, this
keeps me out of mischief.

Stuart Fields Editor/Publisher of the Experimental Helicopter magazine.


"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:Rdk4d.476660$M95.387564@pd7tw1no...
> The bad news.
>
> Most modes of transportation have changed relatively little during the
past
> 70 years. For example, the automobile had, and it still has; four wheels,
an
> enclosed heated passenger compartment, a reciprocating engine and a
steering
> wheel. In addition, the speed limit has not changed, whereas the speed
limit
> of the computer doubles every two years. In part, this slow development is
> because the transportation industry is a mature one.
>
> This is inability to improve is particularly apparent in the field of
> rotorcraft. Boeing has stated " The Chinook was developed in the late
1950s,
> less than a decade after the B-52 bomber entered service. Since then, two
> follow-on bombers have been fielded, but no new heavy-lift helicopter."
>
> This lack of significant advancement in rotorcraft has resulted in a
> diminishing number of people being involved in rotorcraft R & D. In
> addition, this small collection of people is thinned out even further by
> their diversity of interests. Jokingly, at one extreme are the few whose
> 'research consist of discovering whether a NC nut or a NF nut is used on a
> NF bolt. At the other extreme are the few whose research consists of
> modeling the blade vortex in 5D.
>
> This reduced activity at the various levels of rotorcraft development
> manifests itself in many ways. One of these is in the peripheral support
> industries, such as publications. How many times can the same ideas be
> regurgitated?
>
>
> The good news;
>
> I am convinced that the field of rotorcraft has fallen behind that of
other
> modes of transportation. There is an opportunity to catch-up, but, it
will
> only come about when its leaders step out of the box. This box is the
> mindset that has embraced the abominable tail-rotor and excluded the more
> efficient latterly-located-twin-main-rotors.
>
> Frustrated defense departments and some industry leaders are now starting
to
> look in this direction. They are also looking at very-light rotorcraft,
to
> be used as UAVs,
>
> There is absolute no reason why the recreational/experimental side of
> rotorcraft cannot experience a developing and exciting future by moving in
> the same direction.
>
>
> This posting may appear to be self-serving, but there is no commercial
> interest on my part.
>
> Dave J. http://www.UniCopter.com
>
>
>
>
> "Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm quite curious about this groups response to an announcement of a new
> > magazine about experimental helicopters. There has been essentially no
> > response. I'm sure surprised. Is there a basis for this group that I'm
> > unaware of that would create a total lack of curiosity or comment? I'm
> at
> > a loss to understand this.
> >
> >
>
>

[Dave Jackson]

Hi Stu,

Your concerns about price are understood, but for a counter argument;-

My background is in manufacturing, and more specifically, the manufacturing
of equipment that is used to mechanize and automate the production and
assembly lines of other companies. Without qualification, it can be said
that the single largest contributor to lower prices, by far, is 'economies
of scale'

Roughly speaking, the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter has twice as many
different types of parts as the twin-main-rotor helicopter. The
twin-main-rotor helicopter will have double the production run due to the
commonality of parts. Logic suggests that the twin-main-rotor helicopter
will cost less than the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter.

In addition, latterly-located-twin-main-rotors have a number of aerodynamic
advantages.

I really believe that this configuration is the future of rotorcraft, and
this future may arrive next month. The only current request for a new
helicopter in the USA is the DARPA competition for an Unmanned Combat Armed
Rotorcraft. An intermeshing helicopter and a compound helicopter are the
two finalists that are competing for the authorization to build a prototype.

>I've begun to think that I'm talking about enjoying bigamy to a group
> of Catholic priests.

There is no reason why the affeceadoes of recreational helicopters can't
start looking at the 'second coming of rotorcraft'. A little preaching in
your new magazine might lead the unconverted out of the wilderness. :)

Dave J.


"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
> Dave: Thanks for your response. I've begun to think that I'm talking
about
> enjoying bigamy to a group of Catholic priests. Your Joke about the
> research of discovery of the NC nut vs. the NF bolt hit my funny bone. I
> will use that somewhere in the magazine in the future.
> To your hate/dislike for the tail rotor. I don't know whether you have a
> helicopter or not or if you maintain one, but I'm convinced that I can't
> afford a twin rotor ship. The blades for my Safari are over $5,000/ set.
> The transmission, and it is much simpler than what will be required for a
> twin rotor ship is around $15,000. The Rotor heads, the control
linkage???
> Having just finished balancing the tail rotor and main rotor blades on my
> Safari, my imagination runs away with me when I start thinking about
trying
> to balance two main rotors at the same time with the mutual interference
> possible. How do the big boys with lots of $$$ do it?? There is a two
seat
> tandem rotor helo being developed for the kit market in Canada. Their
price
> guess is over $100K. There will be few that can afford this toy. All
these
> high prices for a helicopter that basically is a recreation device that
> can't earn it's keep. We are constantly barraged by people looking for a
> more affordable, otherwise they can't join in, ship. I think that the
> research we need is both into ways to drive the costs of the present
> configurations down, and exploring some of the advantages displayed in
> things like the Cheyenne.
> My "Research" is into the cause and elimination of the 2/rev vibrations in
a
> two bladed helicopter. With my limited funds, my progress is very slow.
I
> am, however, mentally engaged in the project and being an engineer, this
> keeps me out of mischief.
>
> Stuart Fields Editor/Publisher of the Experimental Helicopter magazine.
>
>
> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:Rdk4d.476660$M95.387564@pd7tw1no...
> > The bad news.
> >
> > Most modes of transportation have changed relatively little during the
> past
> > 70 years. For example, the automobile had, and it still has; four
wheels,
> an
> > enclosed heated passenger compartment, a reciprocating engine and a
> steering
> > wheel. In addition, the speed limit has not changed, whereas the speed
> limit
> > of the computer doubles every two years. In part, this slow development
is
> > because the transportation industry is a mature one.
> >
> > This is inability to improve is particularly apparent in the field of
> > rotorcraft. Boeing has stated " The Chinook was developed in the late
> 1950s,
> > less than a decade after the B-52 bomber entered service. Since then,
two
> > follow-on bombers have been fielded, but no new heavy-lift helicopter."
> >
> > This lack of significant advancement in rotorcraft has resulted in a
> > diminishing number of people being involved in rotorcraft R & D. In
> > addition, this small collection of people is thinned out even further by
> > their diversity of interests. Jokingly, at one extreme are the few whose
> > 'research consist of discovering whether a NC nut or a NF nut is used on
a
> > NF bolt. At the other extreme are the few whose research consists of
> > modeling the blade vortex in 5D.
> >
> > This reduced activity at the various levels of rotorcraft development
> > manifests itself in many ways. One of these is in the peripheral support
> > industries, such as publications. How many times can the same ideas be
> > regurgitated?
> >
> >
> > The good news;
> >
> > I am convinced that the field of rotorcraft has fallen behind that of
> other
> > modes of transportation. There is an opportunity to catch-up, but, it
> will
> > only come about when its leaders step out of the box. This box is the
> > mindset that has embraced the abominable tail-rotor and excluded the
more
> > efficient latterly-located-twin-main-rotors.
> >
> > Frustrated defense departments and some industry leaders are now
starting
> to
> > look in this direction. They are also looking at very-light rotorcraft,
> to
> > be used as UAVs,
> >
> > There is absolute no reason why the recreational/experimental side of
> > rotorcraft cannot experience a developing and exciting future by moving
in
> > the same direction.
> >
> >
> > This posting may appear to be self-serving, but there is no commercial
> > interest on my part.
> >
> > Dave J. http://www.UniCopter.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I'm quite curious about this groups response to an announcement of a
new
> > > magazine about experimental helicopters. There has been essentially
no
> > > response. I'm sure surprised. Is there a basis for this group that
I'm
> > > unaware of that would create a total lack of curiosity or comment?
I'm
> > at
> > > a loss to understand this.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Kathryn & Stuart Fields]

"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:jHK4d.83778$%S.11725@pd7tw2no...
> Hi Stu,
>
> Your concerns about price are understood, but for a counter argument;-
>
> My background is in manufacturing, and more specifically, the
manufacturing
> of equipment that is used to mechanize and automate the production and
> assembly lines of other companies. Without qualification, it can be said
> that the single largest contributor to lower prices, by far, is 'economies
> of scale'
Boy do I understand that..I manufacture a rotor speed alarm system. It is
basically for the Safari, but easily modifiable to others. With the small
market the individual prices have to be high to cover my costs. I also
built some cyclic simulators that I thought should sell for $50. My cost
was closer to $200. If I could build 1,000... Yeah you were preaching to
the choir here.

> Roughly speaking, the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter has twice as many
> different types of parts as the twin-main-rotor helicopter. The
> twin-main-rotor helicopter will have double the production run due to the
> commonality of parts. Logic suggests that the twin-main-rotor helicopter
> will cost less than the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter.
Logic does not suggest that the twin main will cost less than the main-tail
ship unless you can produce in large quantities. Logic obviously says that
the main-tail is less costly for single items. Your argument may hold
water for some yet to be determined production numbers. Just remember the
market for kit helicopters is not large. If you go into the certified
ships, you will learn, as Frank Robinson has learned, there are some
overhead costs that can jack your costs up that aren't covered in a simple
economies of scale model..

> In addition, latterly-located-twin-main-rotors have a number of
aerodynamic
> advantages.
I agree here just based on what I see the Kamans doing.
>
> I really believe that this configuration is the future of rotorcraft, and
> this future may arrive next month. The only current request for a new
> helicopter in the USA is the DARPA competition for an Unmanned Combat
Armed
> Rotorcraft. An intermeshing helicopter and a compound helicopter are the
> two finalists that are competing for the authorization to build a
prototype.
I used to have great respect for DARPA (I had an interface with them in the
70's) until they pulled off that "Great Challenge", which they called a
"Success". I had inside poop from a guy working on the set up for that
FARCE. DARPA spent $12M on the setup for that event and only pre-tested the
entrants on a flat well defined track. I think that the managers are
running DARPA now and apparently they don't understand tech issues very
well. I would be very cautious about using DARPA's seal of approval to mean
anything.

> >I've begun to think that I'm talking about enjoying bigamy to a group
> > of Catholic priests.
>
> There is no reason why the affeceadoes of recreational helicopters can't
> start looking at the 'second coming of rotorcraft'. A little preaching in
> your new magazine might lead the unconverted out of the wilderness. :)
Dave: I have a problem with Moller AirCar, Ezcopter, Skyscooter and a few
of the others with their "positive forward thinking" when they haven't built
and tested the item to really know what they are talking about. They claim
"Easy to build and Easy to fly" and haven't built and tested the prototype.
The Skyscooter does not have collective controls and I believe therefore
very questionable autorotation ability.. These have to be rectal
extractions since they haven't gone the whole route. I'm surprised at
people, however, a friend told me of an investment banker that tried to dump
a bunch of bucks on an untried and unflied helicopter kit a few years ago
just based on the artist's conception. As I understand it the twin rotor
machines can have pedal reversal during autorotation. That would not be
something that I wanted to expereince during an engine out emergency.
I'm coming to the conclusion that this newsgroup has a different idea or
definition of recreational helicopters. A lot of the posts that I see are
coming from people interested in big $ commercial ships. Only a very small
percentage of the posters seem to be involved in recreational rotorcraft
flying. .

Stu Fields

[Jim]

"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:jHK4d.83778$%S.11725@pd7tw2no...
> > Hi Stu,
> >
> > Your concerns about price are understood, but for a counter argument;-
> >
> > My background is in manufacturing, and more specifically, the
> manufacturing
> > of equipment that is used to mechanize and automate the production and
> > assembly lines of other companies. Without qualification, it can be said
> > that the single largest contributor to lower prices, by far, is
'economies
> > of scale'
> Boy do I understand that..I manufacture a rotor speed alarm system. It is
> basically for the Safari, but easily modifiable to others. With the small
> market the individual prices have to be high to cover my costs. I also
> built some cyclic simulators that I thought should sell for $50. My cost
> was closer to $200. If I could build 1,000... Yeah you were preaching to
> the choir here.
>
> > Roughly speaking, the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter has twice as many
> > different types of parts as the twin-main-rotor helicopter. The
> > twin-main-rotor helicopter will have double the production run due to
the
> > commonality of parts. Logic suggests that the twin-main-rotor helicopter
> > will cost less than the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter.
> Logic does not suggest that the twin main will cost less than the
main-tail
> ship unless you can produce in large quantities. Logic obviously says
that
> the main-tail is less costly for single items. Your argument may hold
> water for some yet to be determined production numbers. Just remember the
> market for kit helicopters is not large. If you go into the certified
> ships, you will learn, as Frank Robinson has learned, there are some
> overhead costs that can jack your costs up that aren't covered in a simple
> economies of scale model..
>
> > In addition, latterly-located-twin-main-rotors have a number of
> aerodynamic
> > advantages.
> I agree here just based on what I see the Kamans doing.
> >
> > I really believe that this configuration is the future of rotorcraft,
and
> > this future may arrive next month. The only current request for a new
> > helicopter in the USA is the DARPA competition for an Unmanned Combat
> Armed
> > Rotorcraft. An intermeshing helicopter and a compound helicopter are
the
> > two finalists that are competing for the authorization to build a
> prototype.
> I used to have great respect for DARPA (I had an interface with them in
the
> 70's) until they pulled off that "Great Challenge", which they called a
> "Success". I had inside poop from a guy working on the set up for that
> FARCE. DARPA spent $12M on the setup for that event and only pre-tested
the
> entrants on a flat well defined track. I think that the managers are
> running DARPA now and apparently they don't understand tech issues very
> well. I would be very cautious about using DARPA's seal of approval to
mean
> anything.
>
> > >I've begun to think that I'm talking about enjoying bigamy to a group
> > > of Catholic priests.
> >
> > There is no reason why the affeceadoes of recreational helicopters can't
> > start looking at the 'second coming of rotorcraft'. A little preaching
in
> > your new magazine might lead the unconverted out of the wilderness. :)
> Dave: I have a problem with Moller AirCar, Ezcopter, Skyscooter and a few
> of the others with their "positive forward thinking" when they haven't
built
> and tested the item to really know what they are talking about. They
claim
> "Easy to build and Easy to fly" and haven't built and tested the
prototype.
> The Skyscooter does not have collective controls and I believe therefore
> very questionable autorotation ability.. These have to be rectal
> extractions since they haven't gone the whole route. I'm surprised at
> people, however, a friend told me of an investment banker that tried to
dump
> a bunch of bucks on an untried and unflied helicopter kit a few years ago
> just based on the artist's conception. As I understand it the twin rotor
> machines can have pedal reversal during autorotation. That would not be
> something that I wanted to expereince during an engine out emergency.
> I'm coming to the conclusion that this newsgroup has a different idea or
> definition of recreational helicopters. A lot of the posts that I see are
> coming from people interested in big $ commercial ships. Only a very
small
> percentage of the posters seem to be involved in recreational rotorcraft
> flying. .
>
> Stu Fields
>
>

[Jim]

Stu, I will be interested in the magazine when it becomes monthly and thick
(not with ads not related to helicopterst either).

an opinion only mindya
Jim


"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:jHK4d.83778$%S.11725@pd7tw2no...
> > Hi Stu,
> >

[Dave Jackson]

Stu,

> I would be very cautious about using DARPA's seal of approval
> to mean anything.

OK forget DARPA. :)

A couple of years ago the US Army requested concepts for a new heavy lift
helicopter. Bell proposed the quad-rotor V-44, Boeing proposed a
side-by-side configuration and Sikorsky proposed a single rotor with a
reverse velocity capability. Sikorsky's concept appears flawed [
http://www.synchrolite.com/1281.html#Potential_Problems ], which leaves
multiple main rotors as the only contenders.

OK forget what the big boys are doing ~ although it does suggest the future
of rotorcraft.

Let's consider simple low cost helicopters, similar to those that were built
in the beginning. Last year Tom Lawrence, a senior engineer at Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation wrote; "However, the single greatest feature was Igor
Sikorsky's faith in the benefits of the single rotor helicopter. Much
derided at the time, the single-rotor configuration would come to dominate
the worlds helicopters." What an interesting statement. Those who "Much
derided" the single-rotor helicopter had good cause. They were not ignorant
people. In fact, some of the most knowledgeable rotorcraft people at that
time were in Germany. Both Flettner and Focke had built better helicopters
then Igor, before he built his. Perhaps Igor's "faith" was a sort of 'blind
faith'. Or, perhaps his faith was placed in marketing; to DARPA type
government employees. :)


> Logic does not suggest that the twin main will cost less than
> the main-tail ship unless you can produce in large quantities.

The main/tail rotor helicopter and the twin-main-rotor helicopter have the
same total number of blades and gears etc. The former has big parts and it
has small parts. The latter has only identical medium size parts, but twice
as many. Savings from volume production starts at 2-off. This is because
the machine setup cost, the purchasing cost, etc. etc. are now 1/2 per part
for what they would be for only 1-off.


> I have a problem with Moller AirCar, Ezcopter, Skyscooter
> and a few of the others....

Me too, but the Intermeshing helicopter is a proven configuration.


> As I understand it the twin rotor machines
> can have pedal reversal during autorotation.

The intermeshing helicopter does have pedal reversal during autorotation.
Offsetting this argument; the intermeshing helicopter (Flettner FL-282) was
the first helicopter to enter and exit autorotation. In addition, the US
armed services stopped using Kaman Huskie helicopters for training their
pilots because they were too easy to fly.

If someone starts building recreational twin-rotor helicopters, the people
will come.

Dave J.


"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:jHK4d.83778$%S.11725@pd7tw2no...
> > Hi Stu,
> >
> > Your concerns about price are understood, but for a counter argument;-
> >
> > My background is in manufacturing, and more specifically, the
> manufacturing
> > of equipment that is used to mechanize and automate the production and
> > assembly lines of other companies. Without qualification, it can be said
> > that the single largest contributor to lower prices, by far, is
'economies
> > of scale'
> Boy do I understand that..I manufacture a rotor speed alarm system. It is
> basically for the Safari, but easily modifiable to others. With the small
> market the individual prices have to be high to cover my costs. I also
> built some cyclic simulators that I thought should sell for $50. My cost
> was closer to $200. If I could build 1,000... Yeah you were preaching to
> the choir here.
>
> > Roughly speaking, the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter has twice as many
> > different types of parts as the twin-main-rotor helicopter. The
> > twin-main-rotor helicopter will have double the production run due to
the
> > commonality of parts. Logic suggests that the twin-main-rotor helicopter
> > will cost less than the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter.
> Logic does not suggest that the twin main will cost less than the
main-tail
> ship unless you can produce in large quantities. Logic obviously says
that
> the main-tail is less costly for single items. Your argument may hold
> water for some yet to be determined production numbers. Just remember the
> market for kit helicopters is not large. If you go into the certified
> ships, you will learn, as Frank Robinson has learned, there are some
> overhead costs that can jack your costs up that aren't covered in a simple
> economies of scale model..
>
> > In addition, latterly-located-twin-main-rotors have a number of
> aerodynamic
> > advantages.
> I agree here just based on what I see the Kamans doing.
> >
> > I really believe that this configuration is the future of rotorcraft,
and
> > this future may arrive next month. The only current request for a new
> > helicopter in the USA is the DARPA competition for an Unmanned Combat
> Armed
> > Rotorcraft. An intermeshing helicopter and a compound helicopter are
the
> > two finalists that are competing for the authorization to build a
> prototype.
> I used to have great respect for DARPA (I had an interface with them in
the
> 70's) until they pulled off that "Great Challenge", which they called a
> "Success". I had inside poop from a guy working on the set up for that
> FARCE. DARPA spent $12M on the setup for that event and only pre-tested
the
> entrants on a flat well defined track. I think that the managers are
> running DARPA now and apparently they don't understand tech issues very
> well. I would be very cautious about using DARPA's seal of approval to
mean
> anything.
>
> > >I've begun to think that I'm talking about enjoying bigamy to a group
> > > of Catholic priests.
> >
> > There is no reason why the affeceadoes of recreational helicopters can't
> > start looking at the 'second coming of rotorcraft'. A little preaching
in
> > your new magazine might lead the unconverted out of the wilderness. :)
> Dave: I have a problem with Moller AirCar, Ezcopter, Skyscooter and a few
> of the others with their "positive forward thinking" when they haven't
built
> and tested the item to really know what they are talking about. They
claim
> "Easy to build and Easy to fly" and haven't built and tested the
prototype.
> The Skyscooter does not have collective controls and I believe therefore
> very questionable autorotation ability.. These have to be rectal
> extractions since they haven't gone the whole route. I'm surprised at
> people, however, a friend told me of an investment banker that tried to
dump
> a bunch of bucks on an untried and unflied helicopter kit a few years ago
> just based on the artist's conception. As I understand it the twin rotor
> machines can have pedal reversal during autorotation. That would not be
> something that I wanted to expereince during an engine out emergency.
> I'm coming to the conclusion that this newsgroup has a different idea or
> definition of recreational helicopters. A lot of the posts that I see are
> coming from people interested in big $ commercial ships. Only a very
small
> percentage of the posters seem to be involved in recreational rotorcraft
> flying. .
>
> Stu Fields
>
>

[Stuart Fields]

"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:XX%5d.528130$M95.119372@pd7tw1no...
> Stu,
>
> > I would be very cautious about using DARPA's seal of approval
> > to mean anything.
>
> OK forget DARPA. :)
>
> A couple of years ago the US Army requested concepts for a new heavy lift
> helicopter. Bell proposed the quad-rotor V-44, Boeing proposed a
> side-by-side configuration and Sikorsky proposed a single rotor with a
> reverse velocity capability. Sikorsky's concept appears flawed [
> http://www.synchrolite.com/1281.html#Potential_Problems ], which leaves
> multiple main rotors as the only contenders.
>
> OK forget what the big boys are doing ~ although it does suggest the
future
> of rotorcraft.
The twin rotor helicopter does have a c.g. range advantage and for heavy
lifting (internal cargo especially) they would be hard to beat. Also how
big of a rotor can you build for a single rotor machine? Multiple blades
and you would have a parking problem..
>
> Let's consider simple low cost helicopters, similar to those that were
built
> in the beginning. Last year Tom Lawrence, a senior engineer at Sikorsky
> Aircraft Corporation wrote; "However, the single greatest feature was Igor
> Sikorsky's faith in the benefits of the single rotor helicopter. Much
> derided at the time, the single-rotor configuration would come to dominate
> the worlds helicopters." What an interesting statement. Those who "Much
> derided" the single-rotor helicopter had good cause. They were not
ignorant
> people. In fact, some of the most knowledgeable rotorcraft people at that
> time were in Germany. Both Flettner and Focke had built better helicopters
> then Igor, before he built his. Perhaps Igor's "faith" was a sort of
'blind
> faith'. Or, perhaps his faith was placed in marketing; to DARPA type
> government employees. :)
>
>
> > Logic does not suggest that the twin main will cost less than
> > the main-tail ship unless you can produce in large quantities.
>
> The main/tail rotor helicopter and the twin-main-rotor helicopter have the
> same total number of blades and gears etc. The former has big parts and
it
> has small parts. The latter has only identical medium size parts, but
twice
> as many. Savings from volume production starts at 2-off. This is because
> the machine setup cost, the purchasing cost, etc. etc. are now 1/2 per
part
> for what they would be for only 1-off.
Well not exactly. I get quantity discounts only after I purchase at least
10 things and sometimes the quantity discount doesn't start until I reach
100. Now if these items were rotor blades? Look at the production run for
Bell 206 blades and the cost of these things!!! I understand the Schweitzer
blades for the 300 are $15,000 each blade( $45,000 a set!!!!) There are
quite a few 300s out there.. I will agree that the tooling costs get
amortized over the run; but I had better have a good idea what the run is
going to be before I start....
>
>
> > I have a problem with Moller AirCar, Ezcopter, Skyscooter
> > and a few of the others....
>
> Me too, but the Intermeshing helicopter is a proven configuration.
It hasn't been proven in the price range for personal helicopter operation.
How many do you think that you would have to produce to make them cheaper
than an R-22 (which most of us can't afford)? If you are really talking
about the commercial operating machines, I might agree with you that the
intermeshing rotors might have a future. It would depend on acquisition and
maintenance costs. One of the prime reasons I play with the experimental
class ship is that I can't afford the maintenance costs of a Bell 47 D-1,
Schweitzer 300CB etc. The Parts and Labor for these machines is too much
for my budget. Especially when I can fly my bird just as fast and hover
just as high as either one of them. The maintenance costs have to be as
high or probably higher for an intermeshing rotor system.
> > As I understand it the twin rotor machines
> > can have pedal reversal during autorotation.
>
> The intermeshing helicopter does have pedal reversal during autorotation.
> Offsetting this argument; the intermeshing helicopter (Flettner FL-282)
was
> the first helicopter to enter and exit autorotation. In addition, the US
> armed services stopped using Kaman Huskie helicopters for training their
> pilots because they were too easy to fly.
Could be. I talked to one logging operator that had a hovering auto from
150' with little or no damage to the ship(Kaman). That is a bit high for a
Bell 47... No he didn't drop the nose and get a bunch of airspeed. He was
over the logging landing and the only place to land was directly below. I
would definitely feel safer screwing around in one of those...
>
> If someone starts building recreational twin-rotor helicopters, the people
> will come.
You know I agree. But will enough come to make it an economically viable
operation?? We'll soon have a picture with the La Flamme ship being built
in Canada. Cute mini CH 47 (two seat). Initial target price is well over
$100k and will increase from there as reality sets in.
I'll still kiss the ring of anyone that comes up with a two seat
recreational class twin rotor helicopter kit for under $100k a copy that can
demonstrate economical viability for more than 3 years..
Stu Fields Skeptic but hopeful.

> Dave J.
>
>
> "Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> > news:jHK4d.83778$%S.11725@pd7tw2no...
> > > Hi Stu,
> > >
> > > Your concerns about price are understood, but for a counter argument;-
> > >
> > > My background is in manufacturing, and more specifically, the
> > manufacturing
> > > of equipment that is used to mechanize and automate the production and
> > > assembly lines of other companies. Without qualification, it can be
said
> > > that the single largest contributor to lower prices, by far, is
> 'economies
> > > of scale'
> > Boy do I understand that..I manufacture a rotor speed alarm system. It
is
> > basically for the Safari, but easily modifiable to others. With the
small
> > market the individual prices have to be high to cover my costs. I also
> > built some cyclic simulators that I thought should sell for $50. My
cost
> > was closer to $200. If I could build 1,000... Yeah you were preaching
to
> > the choir here.
> >
> > > Roughly speaking, the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter has twice as
many
> > > different types of parts as the twin-main-rotor helicopter. The
> > > twin-main-rotor helicopter will have double the production run due to
> the
> > > commonality of parts. Logic suggests that the twin-main-rotor
helicopter
> > > will cost less than the main-rotor/tail-rotor helicopter.
> > Logic does not suggest that the twin main will cost less than the
> main-tail
> > ship unless you can produce in large quantities. Logic obviously says
> that
> > the main-tail is less costly for single items. Your argument may hold
> > water for some yet to be determined production numbers. Just remember
the
> > market for kit helicopters is not large. If you go into the certified
> > ships, you will learn, as Frank Robinson has learned, there are some
> > overhead costs that can jack your costs up that aren't covered in a
simple
> > economies of scale model..
> >
> > > In addition, latterly-located-twin-main-rotors have a number of
> > aerodynamic
> > > advantages.
> > I agree here just based on what I see the Kamans doing.
> > >
> > > I really believe that this configuration is the future of rotorcraft,
> and
> > > this future may arrive next month. The only current request for a new
> > > helicopter in the USA is the DARPA competition for an Unmanned Combat
> > Armed
> > > Rotorcraft. An intermeshing helicopter and a compound helicopter are
> the
> > > two finalists that are competing for the authorization to build a
> > prototype.
> > I used to have great respect for DARPA (I had an interface with them in
> the
> > 70's) until they pulled off that "Great Challenge", which they called a
> > "Success". I had inside poop from a guy working on the set up for that
> > FARCE. DARPA spent $12M on the setup for that event and only pre-tested
> the
> > entrants on a flat well defined track. I think that the managers are
> > running DARPA now and apparently they don't understand tech issues very
> > well. I would be very cautious about using DARPA's seal of approval to
> mean
> > anything.
> >
> > > >I've begun to think that I'm talking about enjoying bigamy to a
group
> > > > of Catholic priests.
> > >
> > > There is no reason why the affeceadoes of recreational helicopters
can't
> > > start looking at the 'second coming of rotorcraft'. A little
preaching
> in
> > > your new magazine might lead the unconverted out of the wilderness.
:)
> > Dave: I have a problem with Moller AirCar, Ezcopter, Skyscooter and a
few
> > of the others with their "positive forward thinking" when they haven't
> built
> > and tested the item to really know what they are talking about. They
> claim
> > "Easy to build and Easy to fly" and haven't built and tested the
> prototype.
> > The Skyscooter does not have collective controls and I believe therefore
> > very questionable autorotation ability.. These have to be rectal
> > extractions since they haven't gone the whole route. I'm surprised at
> > people, however, a friend told me of an investment banker that tried to
> dump
> > a bunch of bucks on an untried and unflied helicopter kit a few years
ago
> > just based on the artist's conception. As I understand it the twin rotor
> > machines can have pedal reversal during autorotation. That would not be
> > something that I wanted to expereince during an engine out emergency.
> > I'm coming to the conclusion that this newsgroup has a different idea or
> > definition of recreational helicopters. A lot of the posts that I see
are
> > coming from people interested in big $ commercial ships. Only a very
> small
> > percentage of the posters seem to be involved in recreational rotorcraft
> > flying. .
> >
> > Stu Fields
> >
> >
>
>

[Dave Jackson]

Stu,

No doubt, you have more important things to do then that of discussing the
pros and cons of twin main rotors, but I sincerely believe that the
intermeshing configuration may be the salvation of recreational rotorcraft.
The following four points support this belief.

1/ Duplicity of parts: The cost advantage has to do with production.
For example, it may take 20 minutes to process the work order, set up the
drill-press and the jig etc., to drill one hole in an angle. The drilling
of the hole may take only 0.5 minutes. Therefore the time to drill one part
will be 20.5 minutes, whereas, the time to drill 2 parts will be 21 minutes,
which is 10.5 minutes per part.

2/ The pictures on the following web page show the compactness of an
intermeshing assembly. This assembly includes the rotor-hubs, the
flight-controls and the drive-train.
http://www.germanvtol.com/fl282rotorfolder/fl282rotor.html

3/ Here is a proposal for a recreational helicopter, which could offer;
reliability and partial homebuilt construction at a price far below
$100,000.00. http://www.synchrolite.com/Dragonfly.html

4/ Here is a possible organizational structure for the proposed
helicopter. http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly_Organization.html

Dave J.

[Kathryn & Stuart Fields]

Jim: The magazine will go monthly if there is enough interest (subscribers)
and article sources. Keep an eye on it. Getting ads, while necessary to
fund the production of the magazine is not our major thrust. We want a good
magazine with lots of technical how-tos and good articles on builders
successes. We will not have any ads from Ford or John Deere or other
non-aviation oriented sources.
Thanks for your response.
Stu Fields Editor/Publisher Experimental Helicopter Magazine

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> Stu, I will be interested in the magazine when it becomes monthly and
thick
> (not with ads not related to helicopterst either).
>
> an opinion only mindya
> Jim
>
>
> "Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> > news:jHK4d.83778$%S.11725@pd7tw2no...
> > > Hi Stu,
> > >
>
>

[Kathryn & Stuart Fields]

"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:o_76d.551896$gE.128675@pd7tw3no...
> Stu,
>
> No doubt, you have more important things to do then that of discussing the
> pros and cons of twin main rotors, but I sincerely believe that the
> intermeshing configuration may be the salvation of recreational
rotorcraft.
> The following four points support this belief.
Dave: Unfortunately, I will talk helicopters at the drop of a hat and have
been known to go to great lengths to furnish the hat.

>
> 1/ Duplicity of parts: The cost advantage has to do with production.
> For example, it may take 20 minutes to process the work order, set up the
> drill-press and the jig etc., to drill one hole in an angle. The drilling
> of the hole may take only 0.5 minutes. Therefore the time to drill one
part
> will be 20.5 minutes, whereas, the time to drill 2 parts will be 21
minutes,
> which is 10.5 minutes per part.
This is a great very small wet thumb analysis of a complex production
process. I doubt if it can be linearly extended to forecast actual costs of
a production run.
>
> 2/ The pictures on the following web page show the compactness of an
> intermeshing assembly. This assembly includes the rotor-hubs, the
> flight-controls and the drive-train.
> http://www.germanvtol.com/fl282rotorfolder/fl282rotor.html

My God Dave! this thing looks several orders of magnitude more complex than
the trans, swash plate and rotor head than that which I'm flying. It
appears to be heavy enough that when added to the engine weight and the
rotor blades, 254# will be a memory.
>
> 3/ Here is a proposal for a recreational helicopter, which could offer;
> reliability and partial homebuilt construction at a price far below
> $100,000.00. http://www.synchrolite.com/Dragonfly.html

Who do you propose is actually going to build one? I would certainly be
very interested in a story about the construction and testing of such a
ship. But a prototype is going to be necessary to prove the concept (not
just the intermeshing config; that has been done but the producibility at
the cost figures needed to produce a viable product)
>
> 4/ Here is a possible organizational structure for the proposed
> helicopter. http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly_Organization.html

You've obviously put a lot of thought into this. Where do you go from here?

Stu.
>
> Dave J.
>
>
>

[Dave Jackson]

> Where do you go from here?

Back to struggling with a FART (Future Advanced Rotorcraft Technology)

Its a long trip from the scratchpad to the helipad. :)

Dave J.




"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:o_76d.551896$gE.128675@pd7tw3no...
> > Stu,
> >
> > No doubt, you have more important things to do then that of discussing
the
> > pros and cons of twin main rotors, but I sincerely believe that the
> > intermeshing configuration may be the salvation of recreational
> rotorcraft.
> > The following four points support this belief.
> Dave: Unfortunately, I will talk helicopters at the drop of a hat and
have
> been known to go to great lengths to furnish the hat.
>
> >
> > 1/ Duplicity of parts: The cost advantage has to do with production.
> > For example, it may take 20 minutes to process the work order, set up
the
> > drill-press and the jig etc., to drill one hole in an angle. The
drilling
> > of the hole may take only 0.5 minutes. Therefore the time to drill one
> part
> > will be 20.5 minutes, whereas, the time to drill 2 parts will be 21
> minutes,
> > which is 10.5 minutes per part.
> This is a great very small wet thumb analysis of a complex production
> process. I doubt if it can be linearly extended to forecast actual costs
of
> a production run.
> >
> > 2/ The pictures on the following web page show the compactness of an
> > intermeshing assembly. This assembly includes the rotor-hubs, the
> > flight-controls and the drive-train.
> > http://www.germanvtol.com/fl282rotorfolder/fl282rotor.html
>
> My God Dave! this thing looks several orders of magnitude more complex
than
> the trans, swash plate and rotor head than that which I'm flying. It
> appears to be heavy enough that when added to the engine weight and the
> rotor blades, 254# will be a memory.
> >
> > 3/ Here is a proposal for a recreational helicopter, which could
offer;
> > reliability and partial homebuilt construction at a price far below
> > $100,000.00. http://www.synchrolite.com/Dragonfly.html
>
> Who do you propose is actually going to build one? I would certainly be
> very interested in a story about the construction and testing of such a
> ship. But a prototype is going to be necessary to prove the concept (not
> just the intermeshing config; that has been done but the producibility at
> the cost figures needed to produce a viable product)
> >
> > 4/ Here is a possible organizational structure for the proposed
> > helicopter. http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly_Organization.html
>
> You've obviously put a lot of thought into this. Where do you go from
here?
>
> Stu.
> >
> > Dave J.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Kathryn & Stuart Fields]

It's even longer from the lathe to just 1foot above the helipad. I hope you
are under 21.
Stu.
"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:Vvk6d.555691$gE.389595@pd7tw3no...
> > Where do you go from here?
>
> Back to struggling with a FART (Future Advanced Rotorcraft Technology)
>
> Its a long trip from the scratchpad to the helipad. :)
>
> Dave J.
>
>
>
>
> "Kathryn & Stuart Fields" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
> > news:o_76d.551896$gE.128675@pd7tw3no...
> > > Stu,
> > >
> > > No doubt, you have more important things to do then that of discussing
> the
> > > pros and cons of twin main rotors, but I sincerely believe that the
> > > intermeshing configuration may be the salvation of recreational
> > rotorcraft.
> > > The following four points support this belief.
> > Dave: Unfortunately, I will talk helicopters at the drop of a hat and
> have
> > been known to go to great lengths to furnish the hat.
> >
> > >
> > > 1/ Duplicity of parts: The cost advantage has to do with
production.
> > > For example, it may take 20 minutes to process the work order, set up
> the
> > > drill-press and the jig etc., to drill one hole in an angle. The
> drilling
> > > of the hole may take only 0.5 minutes. Therefore the time to drill
one
> > part
> > > will be 20.5 minutes, whereas, the time to drill 2 parts will be 21
> > minutes,
> > > which is 10.5 minutes per part.
> > This is a great very small wet thumb analysis of a complex production
> > process. I doubt if it can be linearly extended to forecast actual
costs
> of
> > a production run.
> > >
> > > 2/ The pictures on the following web page show the compactness of an
> > > intermeshing assembly. This assembly includes the rotor-hubs, the
> > > flight-controls and the drive-train.
> > > http://www.germanvtol.com/fl282rotorfolder/fl282rotor.html
> >
> > My God Dave! this thing looks several orders of magnitude more complex
> than
> > the trans, swash plate and rotor head than that which I'm flying. It
> > appears to be heavy enough that when added to the engine weight and the
> > rotor blades, 254# will be a memory.
> > >
> > > 3/ Here is a proposal for a recreational helicopter, which could
> offer;
> > > reliability and partial homebuilt construction at a price far below
> > > $100,000.00. http://www.synchrolite.com/Dragonfly.html
> >
> > Who do you propose is actually going to build one? I would certainly be
> > very interested in a story about the construction and testing of such a
> > ship. But a prototype is going to be necessary to prove the concept
(not
> > just the intermeshing config; that has been done but the producibility
at
> > the cost figures needed to produce a viable product)
> > >
> > > 4/ Here is a possible organizational structure for the proposed
> > > helicopter. http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly_Organization.html
> >
> > You've obviously put a lot of thought into this. Where do you go from
> here?
> >
> > Stu.
> > >
> > > Dave J.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>