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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Bart" wrote in message ... I don't mean to further yet another moronic discussion about yet another pie in the sky (lol) rotorcraft, but MM, regardless of who he is, is correct. Ground resonance has nothing to do with rotor tip speed. Its mainly germane to helicopters which have shock-struts as the main rotor rotational rate crosses the resonant frequency(ies) of the struts. It tends to be exaggerated and more dangerous in machines with four struts and three blades. Nothing has ever caused my Jetranger to enter the onset of ground resonance. Know why?; Two blades, No struts....Hmmm. Mach number my eye, and who the heck cares about ground resonance in a discussion on increasing Vmax? Bart What a nice change, someone who does actually understands something about the issue! The reason that a JetRanger can not have ground resonance is that it does not have lag hinges or other source of flexibility in-plane. If the rotor's natural lag frequency is higher than the rotor speed, as is the case with the Bell teetering rotors, it is impossible for it to have a ground resonance instability. Rotors with this characteristic are called "stiff-inplane". You can have a stiff-inplane rotor with more than 2 blades (BO105, BK117) and they too are immune from ground resonance. (If look at a BO105 or BK117 hub you will not see any lag dampers.) The struts are associated with ground resonance, but not in the way that you seem to think. They do not cause the problem; they are there to provide the damping needed to stabilize the system. If anyone is interested, we could have a nice little productive thread on ground resonance. If you do care about this subject, though, please, ignore that guy "Dennis". He really, really doesn't know what he is talking about on this subject. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
mm wrote:
If anyone is interested, we could have a nice little productive thread on ground resonance. Pardon me for sounding snide but if your next nice little productive thread is like your last one then two other people will participate besides youself and one of those will be Dennis who you claim doesn't know what he's talking about. Sounds like a barn burner to me. If you do care about this subject, though, please, ignore that guy "Dennis". He really, really doesn't know what he is talking about on this subject. AND YOU DO......!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your not related to Badwater Bill are you...??????????? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
George Vranek wrote:
In the last weeks, there is a big silence in this NG regarding fast flying helicopters. Please have a look at www.vranek.ch/diskrotor.htm and publish your comments and questions if any in this NG. Geoge I see a lot of negativity in this NG about this concept but I feel it has at laest as much merit as a tilt rotor. J. Roncallo My opinions posted on this news group are my own and do not represent the company I work for. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I agree the concept has at least as much merit as a tilt rotor.
Brien "John Roncallo" wrote in message ... George Vranek wrote: In the last weeks, there is a big silence in this NG regarding fast flying helicopters. Please have a look at www.vranek.ch/diskrotor.htm and publish your comments and questions if any in this NG. Geoge I see a lot of negativity in this NG about this concept but I feel it has at laest as much merit as a tilt rotor. J. Roncallo My opinions posted on this news group are my own and do not represent the company I work for. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hallo John, hallo Brien,
thanks for your comparison of the diskrotor with the tiltrotor. But despite of nearly 50 years long development, the tiltrotor has two faults: It has not optimal rotors for hovering and not optimal props for cruising. It means, that a tiltrotor lifts less load in hovering than a conventional helicopter and cruise slower than a conventional turboprop airplane with equal installed power. The diskrotor is optimal for hovering because the big disk brings law and order in the aerodynamic of a helicopter rotor and the disk with retracted rotor blades is well suitable for a really fast cruising. Even supersonic speeds are feasible!!! George "brien" wrote in message ... I agree the concept has at least as much merit as a tilt rotor. Brien "John Roncallo" wrote in message ... George Vranek wrote: In the last weeks, there is a big silence in this NG regarding fast flying helicopters. Please have a look at www.vranek.ch/diskrotor.htm and publish your comments and questions if any in this NG. Geoge I see a lot of negativity in this NG about this concept but I feel it has at laest as much merit as a tilt rotor. J. Roncallo My opinions posted on this news group are my own and do not represent the company I work for. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
George Vranek wrote:
Hallo John, hallo Brien, thanks for your comparison of the diskrotor with the tiltrotor. But despite of nearly 50 years long development, the tiltrotor has two faults: It has not optimal rotors for hovering and not optimal props for cruising. It means, that a tiltrotor lifts less load in hovering than a conventional helicopter and cruise slower than a conventional turboprop airplane with equal installed power. The diskrotor is optimal for hovering because the big disk brings law and order in the aerodynamic of a helicopter rotor and the disk with retracted rotor blades is well suitable for a really fast cruising. Even supersonic speeds are feasible!!! George "brien" wrote in message ... I said the concept has at least as much merit as a tilt rotor. I did not say better or worse. I fully understand the tilt rotors limitations and some of the disk rotors. You are still yet to discover the how practical or impractical your concept is, and who knows maybe it will just be the most practical concept since the tail rotor. Maybe you will only need 30 years instead of 50. If you got the funding go for it. Also if you get the funding let me know. John Roncallo |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"John Roncallo" wrote in message om... George Vranek wrote: Hallo John, hallo Brien, thanks for your comparison of the diskrotor with the tiltrotor. But despite of nearly 50 years long development, the tiltrotor has two faults: It has not optimal rotors for hovering and not optimal props for cruising. It means, that a tiltrotor lifts less load in hovering than a conventional helicopter and cruise slower than a conventional turboprop airplane with equal installed power. The diskrotor is optimal for hovering because the big disk brings law and order in the aerodynamic of a helicopter rotor and the disk with retracted rotor blades is well suitable for a really fast cruising. Even supersonic speeds are feasible!!! George "brien" wrote in message ... I said the concept has at least as much merit as a tilt rotor. I did not say better or worse. I fully understand the tilt rotors limitations and some of the disk rotors. You are still yet to discover the how practical or impractical your concept is, and who knows maybe it will just be the most practical concept since the tail rotor. Maybe you will only need 30 years instead of 50. If you got the funding go for it. Also if you get the funding let me know. John Roncallo Hallo John, You are right, the most impractical on the diskrotor concept is to get the funding for it. I have made the first drawing of the diskrotor helicopter in June 1993 and from that time I have contacted nearly all helicopter makers (Agusta, Eurocopter, Piasecki, Sikorsky, Westland.........) without any succes. But I am still optimistic, because the time is ripe for a fast flying helicopter: There is a certain number of rich people , who are able to pay 30 millions of US $ for a machine which brings them from New York to Acapulco without waiting for a slot before take off and without waiting in a holding pattern before landing. You know, the time is money. If there is a demand, the suppliers will discover it soon. George |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"George Vranek" wrote in message ... "John Roncallo" wrote in message om... George Vranek wrote: Hallo John, hallo Brien, thanks for your comparison of the diskrotor with the tiltrotor. But despite of nearly 50 years long development, the tiltrotor has two faults: It has not optimal rotors for hovering and not optimal props for cruising. It means, that a tiltrotor lifts less load in hovering than a conventional helicopter and cruise slower than a conventional turboprop airplane with equal installed power. The diskrotor is optimal for hovering because the big disk brings law and order in the aerodynamic of a helicopter rotor and the disk with retracted rotor blades is well suitable for a really fast cruising. Even supersonic speeds are feasible!!! George "brien" wrote in message ... I said the concept has at least as much merit as a tilt rotor. I did not say better or worse. I fully understand the tilt rotors limitations and some of the disk rotors. You are still yet to discover the how practical or impractical your concept is, and who knows maybe it will just be the most practical concept since the tail rotor. Maybe you will only need 30 years instead of 50. If you got the funding go for it. Also if you get the funding let me know. John Roncallo Hallo John, You are right, the most impractical on the diskrotor concept is to get the funding for it. I have made the first drawing of the diskrotor helicopter in June 1993 and from that time I have contacted nearly all helicopter makers (Agusta, Eurocopter, Piasecki, Sikorsky, Westland.........) without any succes. But I am still optimistic, because the time is ripe for a fast flying helicopter: There is a certain number of rich people , who are able to pay 30 millions of US $ for a machine which brings them from New York to Acapulco without waiting for a slot before take off and without waiting in a holding pattern before landing. You know, the time is money. If there is a demand, the suppliers will discover it soon. George I hate to say it but now really isn't the time. The same people that buy Biz-Jets would be the market ant that market is in the tank. Also, NOONE would want a fast helicopter more than the military and if any of the companies above thought the system was viable they would have bought it or at least optioned it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
George Vranek wrote:
You are right, the most impractical on the diskrotor concept is to get the funding for it. I have made the first drawing of the diskrotor helicopter in June 1993 and from that time I have contacted nearly all helicopter makers (Agusta, Eurocopter, Piasecki, Sikorsky, Westland.........) without any succes. But I am still optimistic, because the time is ripe for a fast flying helicopter: There is a certain number of rich people , who are able to pay 30 millions of US $ for a machine which brings them from New York to Acapulco without waiting for a slot before take off and without waiting in a holding pattern before landing. You know, the time is money. If there is a demand, the suppliers will discover it soon. George It is not that it is a diskrotor concept or something new that makes funding a challange. Funding is always a challenge, I'v seen much more bizzare ideas get the funding. All those companys wont be interested unless some government branch like NASA or DARPA ask's them to research it and pays them to do so. I suggest you submit the idea as an DOD or NASA SBIR. Visit http://www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/sbir/othersites/index.htm. I belive Carter Copter got started from a NASA SBIR. My opinions experessed here are my own and do not represent the company I work for. John Roncallo |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
George,
I don't know why you're bothering to blather on about the concept here. Nobody is going to invest in the concept unless its proven viable. Make a model and fly it. Thats what most of the chopper inventors did to prove their ideas. You also need to revise your ideas about how your example customer travels. They dont generally need a slot because theyre not parking their planes at high congestion Class B airports. Since your concept will never fly at M.77+, it would never be competitive in the 2500nm range class of aircraft. Bart Hallo John, You are right, the most impractical on the diskrotor concept is to get the funding for it. I have made the first drawing of the diskrotor helicopter in June 1993 and from that time I have contacted nearly all helicopter makers (Agusta, Eurocopter, Piasecki, Sikorsky, Westland.........) without any succes. But I am still optimistic, because the time is ripe for a fast flying helicopter: There is a certain number of rich people , who are able to pay 30 millions of US $ for a machine which brings them from New York to Acapulco without waiting for a slot before take off and without waiting in a holding pattern before landing. You know, the time is money. If there is a demand, the suppliers will discover it soon. George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |
OH-58 for Civilian use | pp | Rotorcraft | 10 | July 17th 03 07:53 PM |