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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
jet pack
Rob Bulaga wrote:
I know I'm opening myself up to all sorts of flaming, but I designed, built and flew Trek's Solotrek and Springtail aircraft. I think I can shed some light on your discussion about the "jetpack's" stability. All hovering aircraft are statically unstable. When a fixed wing aircraft is perturbed from level flight, a measure of its stability is how quickly the perturbation damps out; its "time-to-half". For a hovering aircraft, a measure of its instability is its "time-to-double"; how long it take that pertubation to get twice as bad. For a Huey helicopter, time-to-double is over 4 seconds, well within a pilot's ability to react. For the Harrier, time-to double is just over 2 seconds; without the onboard stabilization system the Harrier was a handful. The Hiller Flying Platform had a time-to-double of 1.2 seconds; it had a mechanical gyro-stabilization system to make it flyable. The Solotrek/Springtail aircraft have a time-to-double of 0.8 seconds; it has an onboard computer-driven stabilization system. What you'll note is, as moment of inertia (mass) goes down, time-to-double also goes down. The Martin JetPack is even lighter and smaller than Trek's machines, its time-to-double must be very quick. I'm sure they have some sort of stabilization system on their machine. The stability of a high-rotor vs. a low-rotor is a dynamic effect, analogous to dihedral on a high-wing vs. low-wing aircraft. It does nothing to promote static (hovering) stability. Hovering these machines is like trying to stand on a large beachball in the middle of a swimming pool. Essentially, you're balancing on a column of air. There is no pendulum effect. When the machine tilts, the force vectors (columns of air) tilt too. Their relative position to the c.g. is unchanged. There is no "righting" force. On Trek's machines, close to 50% of the static lift is produced by the airflow over the ducts. Martin's design is somewhat less efficient, so he's probably seeing a 20-30% benefit. This helps get the machine up, but causes lots of headaches when you transition to forward flight. In forward flight, the airflow over the leading edge of the duct produces even more lift. That lift, however, is forward of the c.g and causes a pitch-up effect. This was very apparent on the Hiller Flying Platform. Until you can effectively counter the pitch-up problem, you'll be limited to forward flight speeds of 6-8 mph. Mr. Martin appears to be where Trek was 6-7 years ago. He has achieved a lot in his garage, but he still has a long way to go before his machine is ready for anything but test flights. Good post! You will be flamed soon as someone can find an angle. The pendulum idea probably could have been tossed out early by noting that a pendulum inside the cockpit won't work as an attitude indicator. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P-61 belly gun pack | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 0 | March 2nd 07 09:19 AM |
Power pack for camping? | LincTex | General Aviation | 2 | June 26th 06 12:40 PM |
Jet pack | Bob C | Soaring | 14 | January 12th 06 07:11 PM |
Jet pack | Bob C | Soaring | 0 | January 10th 06 07:21 AM |
Pack guns in your little airplane | Rich S. | Home Built | 17 | July 13th 03 05:45 PM |