Curiosity of the first order

Stu,

No doubt, you have more important things to do then that of discussing the
pros and cons of twin main rotors, but I sincerely believe that the
intermeshing configuration may be the salvation of recreational rotorcraft.
The following four points support this belief.

1/ Duplicity of parts: The cost advantage has to do with production.
For example, it may take 20 minutes to process the work order, set up the
drill-press and the jig etc., to drill one hole in an angle. The drilling
of the hole may take only 0.5 minutes. Therefore the time to drill one part
will be 20.5 minutes, whereas, the time to drill 2 parts will be 21 minutes,
which is 10.5 minutes per part.

2/ The pictures on the following web page show the compactness of an
intermeshing assembly. This assembly includes the rotor-hubs, the
flight-controls and the drive-train.
http://www.germanvtol.com/fl282rotor...l282rotor.html

3/ Here is a proposal for a recreational helicopter, which could offer;
reliability and partial homebuilt construction at a price far below
$100,000.00. http://www.synchrolite.com/Dragonfly.html

4/ Here is a possible organizational structure for the proposed
helicopter. http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly_Organization.html

Dave J.

Jim: The magazine will go monthly if there is enough interest (subscribers)
and article sources. Keep an eye on it. Getting ads, while necessary to
fund the production of the magazine is not our major thrust. We want a good
magazine with lots of technical how-tos and good articles on builders
successes. We will not have any ads from Ford or John Deere or other
non-aviation oriented sources.
Thanks for your response.
Stu Fields Editor/Publisher Experimental Helicopter Magazine

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Stu, I will be interested in the magazine when it becomes monthly and
thick
(not with ads not related to helicopterst either).

an opinion only mindya
Jim


"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news:jHK4d.83778$%S.11725@pd7tw2no...
Hi Stu,

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news_76d.551896$gE.128675@pd7tw3no...
Stu,

No doubt, you have more important things to do then that of discussing the
pros and cons of twin main rotors, but I sincerely believe that the
intermeshing configuration may be the salvation of recreational
rotorcraft.
The following four points support this belief.
Dave: Unfortunately, I will talk helicopters at the drop of a hat and have
been known to go to great lengths to furnish the hat.


1/ Duplicity of parts: The cost advantage has to do with production.
For example, it may take 20 minutes to process the work order, set up the
drill-press and the jig etc., to drill one hole in an angle. The drilling
of the hole may take only 0.5 minutes. Therefore the time to drill one
part
will be 20.5 minutes, whereas, the time to drill 2 parts will be 21
minutes,
which is 10.5 minutes per part.
This is a great very small wet thumb analysis of a complex production
process. I doubt if it can be linearly extended to forecast actual costs of
a production run.

2/ The pictures on the following web page show the compactness of an
intermeshing assembly. This assembly includes the rotor-hubs, the
flight-controls and the drive-train.
http://www.germanvtol.com/fl282rotor...l282rotor.html

My God Dave! this thing looks several orders of magnitude more complex than
the trans, swash plate and rotor head than that which I'm flying. It
appears to be heavy enough that when added to the engine weight and the
rotor blades, 254# will be a memory.

3/ Here is a proposal for a recreational helicopter, which could offer;
reliability and partial homebuilt construction at a price far below
$100,000.00. http://www.synchrolite.com/Dragonfly.html

Who do you propose is actually going to build one? I would certainly be
very interested in a story about the construction and testing of such a
ship. But a prototype is going to be necessary to prove the concept (not
just the intermeshing config; that has been done but the producibility at
the cost figures needed to produce a viable product)

4/ Here is a possible organizational structure for the proposed
helicopter. http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly_Organization.html

You've obviously put a lot of thought into this. Where do you go from here?

Stu.

Dave J.

Where do you go from here?

Back to struggling with a FART (Future Advanced Rotorcraft Technology)

Its a long trip from the scratchpad to the helipad.

Dave J.




"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news_76d.551896$gE.128675@pd7tw3no...
Stu,

No doubt, you have more important things to do then that of discussing
the
pros and cons of twin main rotors, but I sincerely believe that the
intermeshing configuration may be the salvation of recreational
rotorcraft.
The following four points support this belief.
Dave: Unfortunately, I will talk helicopters at the drop of a hat and
have
been known to go to great lengths to furnish the hat.


1/ Duplicity of parts: The cost advantage has to do with production.
For example, it may take 20 minutes to process the work order, set up
the
drill-press and the jig etc., to drill one hole in an angle. The
drilling
of the hole may take only 0.5 minutes. Therefore the time to drill one
part
will be 20.5 minutes, whereas, the time to drill 2 parts will be 21
minutes,
which is 10.5 minutes per part.
This is a great very small wet thumb analysis of a complex production
process. I doubt if it can be linearly extended to forecast actual costs
of
a production run.

2/ The pictures on the following web page show the compactness of an
intermeshing assembly. This assembly includes the rotor-hubs, the
flight-controls and the drive-train.
http://www.germanvtol.com/fl282rotor...l282rotor.html

My God Dave! this thing looks several orders of magnitude more complex
than
the trans, swash plate and rotor head than that which I'm flying. It
appears to be heavy enough that when added to the engine weight and the
rotor blades, 254# will be a memory.

3/ Here is a proposal for a recreational helicopter, which could
offer;
reliability and partial homebuilt construction at a price far below
$100,000.00. http://www.synchrolite.com/Dragonfly.html

Who do you propose is actually going to build one? I would certainly be
very interested in a story about the construction and testing of such a
ship. But a prototype is going to be necessary to prove the concept (not
just the intermeshing config; that has been done but the producibility at
the cost figures needed to produce a viable product)

4/ Here is a possible organizational structure for the proposed
helicopter. http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly_Organization.html

You've obviously put a lot of thought into this. Where do you go from
here?

Stu.

Dave J.

It's even longer from the lathe to just 1foot above the helipad. I hope you
are under 21.
Stu.
"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news:Vvk6d.555691$gE.389595@pd7tw3no...
Where do you go from here?

Back to struggling with a FART (Future Advanced Rotorcraft Technology)

Its a long trip from the scratchpad to the helipad.

Dave J.




"Kathryn & Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news_76d.551896$gE.128675@pd7tw3no...
Stu,

No doubt, you have more important things to do then that of discussing
the
pros and cons of twin main rotors, but I sincerely believe that the
intermeshing configuration may be the salvation of recreational
rotorcraft.
The following four points support this belief.
Dave: Unfortunately, I will talk helicopters at the drop of a hat and
have
been known to go to great lengths to furnish the hat.


1/ Duplicity of parts: The cost advantage has to do with
production.
For example, it may take 20 minutes to process the work order, set up
the
drill-press and the jig etc., to drill one hole in an angle. The
drilling
of the hole may take only 0.5 minutes. Therefore the time to drill
one
part
will be 20.5 minutes, whereas, the time to drill 2 parts will be 21
minutes,
which is 10.5 minutes per part.
This is a great very small wet thumb analysis of a complex production
process. I doubt if it can be linearly extended to forecast actual
costs
of
a production run.

2/ The pictures on the following web page show the compactness of an
intermeshing assembly. This assembly includes the rotor-hubs, the
flight-controls and the drive-train.
http://www.germanvtol.com/fl282rotor...l282rotor.html

My God Dave! this thing looks several orders of magnitude more complex
than
the trans, swash plate and rotor head than that which I'm flying. It
appears to be heavy enough that when added to the engine weight and the
rotor blades, 254# will be a memory.

3/ Here is a proposal for a recreational helicopter, which could
offer;
reliability and partial homebuilt construction at a price far below
$100,000.00. http://www.synchrolite.com/Dragonfly.html

Who do you propose is actually going to build one? I would certainly be
very interested in a story about the construction and testing of such a
ship. But a prototype is going to be necessary to prove the concept
(not
just the intermeshing config; that has been done but the producibility
at
the cost figures needed to produce a viable product)

4/ Here is a possible organizational structure for the proposed
helicopter. http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly_Organization.html

You've obviously put a lot of thought into this. Where do you go from
here?

Stu.

Dave J.