New helicopter designs

Dave: I looked at your site on the Unicopter and Sychrolite and saw the
references to the rotor governor, but couldn't tell just how this device was
supposed to work. I cautiously assume that it senses rotor speed and
collectively adjusts pitch to keep the blade speed at some pre-selected rpm?
I also assume that the pilot would have an override for this feature? Do
you know where I can read up on the use of the governor and why that device
hasn't continued to this day? It seems the R-22s might like to have one if
the downside was not too steep.
An aside issue, you state that the need for yaw control of the Unicopter
would be more like a fixed wing. With the exception of hovering, I find the
yaw control on my helicopter to be less than that required by the fixed
wings that I have flown. e.g. no need to lead the turn with pedals to keep
the ball centered. A lot of the multi rotor systems supporters seem to
think that the use of the anti-torque pedals requires a lot of training. I
did not find that to be true at all. Even in the hover. Are you helo
rated?

--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news:ePhtf.222047$Gd6.115880@pd7tw3no...
Stu,

"....has demonstrated flight but is not mechanically capable of
autorotation. Am I missing something?"

Re autorotation;

It might be of interest to know that the first production helicopter, the
Flettner FL-282 had a rotor governor. In addition, Igor Sikorsky's chief
rotor designer, William Hunt, invented a rotor governor for the R-5. The
rotor governor provides automatic entry into autorotation.

Perhaps an article on this subject in your 'Experimental Helo' magazine
would be of interest.

Dave

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

There are several firms offering either plans for, or kits, for
homebuilt
helicopters that have little if any supporting actual flite test data.
Yet
apparently there are willing buyers out there willing to part with their
money for these subjects of marketing rhetoric. Even EAA gave some
notice
of one of the offerings which adds or implies some credibility to the
offering. In this case, the aircraft has demonstrated flight but is
not
mechanically capable of autorotation. Am I missing something? Are
there
that many people out there that just believe the marketing rhetoric
without
having seen a demonstration or having access to an independent test
report?
I know that I don't part with tens of thousands of dollars just based on
the
advertising.

Stu,

I looked at your site on the Unicopter and Sychrolite and saw the
references to the rotor governor, but couldn't tell just how this device
was
supposed to work. I cautiously assume that it senses rotor speed and
collectively adjusts pitch to keep the blade speed at some pre-selected
rpm?

I assume that you are reffering to page http://www.unicopter.com/0575.html,
which is a sub page to http://www.unicopter.com/Governor.html. Actually, it
senses the torque to the rotor. By doing it this way, the application of
more torque from the engine to the rotor will immediately increase the
collective pitch. Conversely, the loss of engine torque lowers the
collective pitch to its autorotative setting. In other words, varing the
torque will vary the collective pitch. You will notice that Hunt's idea has
no provision for collective.


I also assume that the pilot would have an override for this feature?

Yes, on the idea in my web site, the pilot could still have a collective
stick. A primary difference is that the pilot would have to take action to
stop from going into autorotation, instead of having to take action to go
into autorotation.


An aside issue, you state that the need for yaw control of the Unicopter
would be more like a fixed wing.

The UniCopter is a unique rotorcraft, in that the rotors and blades have
'absolute' (actually ~ as close as is reasonably possible to absolute)
rigidity. In other words, the relationship of the blades and the fuselage is
'theoretically' similar to that of an airplane's wings and fuselage. The
technical chalange is the consideration of yaw during hover, which of course
the airplane does not have to consider.


Are you helo rated?

No. Only fixed wing.

Dave