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.