A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Inflatable Rotors (Flying Car?)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 30th 03, 04:16 AM
Ken Sandyeggo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Inflatable Rotors (Flying Car?)

(sanman) wrote in message . com...
I was reading about inflatable wings:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/plane...-wing-01a.html
http://www.ilcdover.com/EngineeredInfl/inflatwing.pdf

and I wondered why these couldn't be implemented as rotor
configuration, for a
"flying car" type of vehicle -- ie. a car that could instantly convert
to helicopter flight.

If you look back at those older Hiller helicopters, they had big,
thick, rigid aluminum rotors:

http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/hiller_x-2-235-r.html
http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/hiller_xh-44-r.html

An inflatable equivalent might be somewhat thicker and yet not be so
rigid, and would not have the high mass penalty.

So you'd be riding a sort of lightweight automotive vehicle along the
road, and you could switch to helicopter mode, with inflatable rotors
popping out on the top of your vehicle. Your engine would then power
the rotors, and you'd fly away. Once you landed again, the deflated
rotors would be tucked back into whatever compartment they'd popped
out from.

Cmon, there are all kinds of wierd-looking lightweight concept cars
out there, so why not this? What would be the main difficulties with a
concept like this?


Getting anyone to stop laughing long enough to think about it. Are
you related to Moller?

KJSDCAUSA
  #2  
Old July 30th 03, 04:46 AM
Wright1902Glider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Seriously though, a helicopter has an extremely small wing area compared to an
equivalant fixed-wing aircraft, and therefore has a tremendous wing loading
The type of loading that would rip the wings off a GA airplane. The reason it
works on helicopters is because of rotor speed and cintrifugal (sp?) force. A
relatively high rotor speed (speed of the rotor blades through the air nearing
the sound barrier) creates a great deal of lift per square foot. However,
because the rotor blades are spinning, cintrifugal force puts the blades under
tremendous tension. This holds the blades in a relatively level plane and
keeps them from flexing upwards excesively and breaking off.

While more blade area can be traded for lower rotor speeds (Hughes built one
with a rotor speed of 16 RPM), you cannot ignore the necessity of cintrifugal
force. A group of students from MIT tried to build a human powered helicopter
a few years ago. They used a 2-blade 60" chord 100+ foot disk setup with
extremely low rotor speeds. While the blades made plenty of lift, the students
could not make them strong enough for the given weight to keep them from either
coning upwards or breaking off. The same would be true of inflatable blades.

Harry
  #5  
Old July 30th 03, 04:20 PM
wmbjk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"sanman" wrote in message
om...

So you'd be riding a sort of lightweight automotive vehicle along the
road, and you could switch to helicopter mode, with inflatable rotors
popping out on the top of your vehicle. Your engine would then power
the rotors, and you'd fly away. Once you landed again, the deflated
rotors would be tucked back into whatever compartment they'd popped
out from.

Cmon, there are all kinds of wierd-looking lightweight concept cars
out there, so why not this? What would be the main difficulties with a
concept like this?


Woodpeckers.

Wayne


  #6  
Old July 30th 03, 05:50 PM
Big John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sanman

On a parallel plane to your rotor blades.

The DOD (Goodyear) some years ago built a inflatable airplane (XAO-3).
It folded up the size of a big suitcase. The wing and control surfaces
were 'blown up' an provided lift and control surface. The unit was
designed for dropping to downed pilots behind enemy lines. They would
blow it up and start a little put put motor and fly to a safe area.
Had a renge of over 300 miles as I recall. Think a air pump was on the
little motor to provide air to inflate.

Never made it into production but the test articles flew.

You might want to research this to see if you can get any ideas and
not have to reinvent the complete wheel G

Big John


On 29 Jul 2003 15:51:24 -0700, (sanman) wrote:

I was reading about inflatable wings:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/plane...-wing-01a.html
http://www.ilcdover.com/EngineeredInfl/inflatwing.pdf

and I wondered why these couldn't be implemented as rotor
configuration, for a
"flying car" type of vehicle -- ie. a car that could instantly convert
to helicopter flight.

If you look back at those older Hiller helicopters, they had big,
thick, rigid aluminum rotors:

http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/hiller_x-2-235-r.html
http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/hiller_xh-44-r.html

An inflatable equivalent might be somewhat thicker and yet not be so
rigid, and would not have the high mass penalty.

So you'd be riding a sort of lightweight automotive vehicle along the
road, and you could switch to helicopter mode, with inflatable rotors
popping out on the top of your vehicle. Your engine would then power
the rotors, and you'd fly away. Once you landed again, the deflated
rotors would be tucked back into whatever compartment they'd popped
out from.

Cmon, there are all kinds of wierd-looking lightweight concept cars
out there, so why not this? What would be the main difficulties with a
concept like this?


  #7  
Old July 30th 03, 11:43 PM
Ernest Christley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big John wrote:
Sanman

On a parallel plane to your rotor blades.

The DOD (Goodyear) some years ago built a inflatable airplane (XAO-3).
It folded up the size of a big suitcase. The wing and control surfaces
were 'blown up' an provided lift and control surface. The unit was
designed for dropping to downed pilots behind enemy lines. They would
blow it up and start a little put put motor and fly to a safe area.
Had a renge of over 300 miles as I recall. Think a air pump was on the
little motor to provide air to inflate.


I saw this on the Wings channel. The airbag had a lot of yarn like
attachments that ran from the top to bottom of the wing so that it
stayed flat instead of blowing up.

With enough pressure and inflated structure can be extremely hard,
compressive wise, but it still doesn't have much buckling strength.
Think of a long thin balloon that they make animals out of at the
carnivals. Get it bent a little, and the rest goes very easily. A
rotor would be a REALLY long, thin balloon.


--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

  #8  
Old July 31st 03, 03:21 AM
TIM WARD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
.com...
Big John wrote:
Sanman

On a parallel plane to your rotor blades.

The DOD (Goodyear) some years ago built a inflatable airplane (XAO-3).
It folded up the size of a big suitcase. The wing and control surfaces
were 'blown up' an provided lift and control surface. The unit was
designed for dropping to downed pilots behind enemy lines. They would
blow it up and start a little put put motor and fly to a safe area.
Had a renge of over 300 miles as I recall. Think a air pump was on the
little motor to provide air to inflate.


I saw this on the Wings channel. The airbag had a lot of yarn like
attachments that ran from the top to bottom of the wing so that it
stayed flat instead of blowing up.

With enough pressure and inflated structure can be extremely hard,
compressive wise, but it still doesn't have much buckling strength.
Think of a long thin balloon that they make animals out of at the
carnivals. Get it bent a little, and the rest goes very easily. A
rotor would be a REALLY long, thin balloon.


--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------


Yeah, but it doesn't _stay_ broken. Relieve the load, and it pops right
back out.
The problem is with air pressure. If you use high pressure, atmospheric
pressure doesn't bother you, but a leak is catastrophic. If you use low
pressure, leaks aren't catastrophic, but altitude changes affect the
rigidity of the structure.

Tim Ward


  #9  
Old July 31st 03, 04:46 AM
Lee Willcox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To add a little more to the goodyear plane.
The bags had built in leaks so that they would not overinflate with altitude
The motor ran an airpump to keep it full.
You would have the same inflation problem with your rotor.
Now that would be one piece of engineering.......


"TIM WARD" wrote in message
...

"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
.com...
Big John wrote:
Sanman

On a parallel plane to your rotor blades.

The DOD (Goodyear) some years ago built a inflatable airplane (XAO-3).
It folded up the size of a big suitcase. The wing and control surfaces
were 'blown up' an provided lift and control surface. The unit was
designed for dropping to downed pilots behind enemy lines. They would
blow it up and start a little put put motor and fly to a safe area.
Had a renge of over 300 miles as I recall. Think a air pump was on the
little motor to provide air to inflate.


I saw this on the Wings channel. The airbag had a lot of yarn like
attachments that ran from the top to bottom of the wing so that it
stayed flat instead of blowing up.

With enough pressure and inflated structure can be extremely hard,
compressive wise, but it still doesn't have much buckling strength.
Think of a long thin balloon that they make animals out of at the
carnivals. Get it bent a little, and the rest goes very easily. A
rotor would be a REALLY long, thin balloon.


--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------


Yeah, but it doesn't _stay_ broken. Relieve the load, and it pops right
back out.
The problem is with air pressure. If you use high pressure, atmospheric
pressure doesn't bother you, but a leak is catastrophic. If you use low
pressure, leaks aren't catastrophic, but altitude changes affect the
rigidity of the structure.

Tim Ward





  #10  
Old August 1st 03, 01:03 AM
sanman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, polymers and reinforcement fiber technology are continuing to
improve. You can even buy carbon-fiber reinforced polymers these days,
with superduper tensile strength. But I would imagine that kevlar,
spectra, vectran would have enough strength to do the job for a small
personal transportation vehicle. They would be able to handle the high
pressures.

To ease the load requirements, the rotor could be 4-vaned. Each pair
of opposing vanes could have a commonly inflated structure -- that way
if a single vane suffered a rupture, then it and its opposing partner
could be deflated/depressurized, while the remaining pair of rotor
vanes would take the load while you landed. Or why not even a 6-way
rotor?

Someone who responded to my posting suggested weighting the rotor tips
for flywheel effect. The centrifugal force from the weighted tips
would help to keep the rotors rigid and reduce the possibility of
buckling. Flywheel energy could also help in the event of an unpowered
landing due to engine failure.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 April 1st 04 08:27 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 March 1st 04 08:27 AM
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons Curtl33 Aerobatics 0 December 12th 03 01:00 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 October 1st 03 07:27 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 September 1st 03 07:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.