darrellwittke
12-24-2004, 07:17 PM
An open letter to Jay Carter and employees,
Dear Sirs,
As a long-time gyroplane fan/hobbyist, I would like to commend your efforts in regard to elevating our beloved but much maligned gyrocopters into a truly unique and extremely capable aircraft.
Several posts on this forum recently (regarding C. Wall and Cartercopter rotor stabilization) has prompted this letter of encouragement to look to the future as time and testing reveal if your approach alone is feasible.
Your approach, as I understand it, is to use what I will henceforth term Newtonian physics (meaning a huge centrifugal force (or centripetal accel. :) ) created by tip weights and a very strong, stiff rotor constructed of the best and latest composite fiber construction) which are used to stabilize the rotor against what I will henceforth term aerodynamic forces (eg. shifting aerodynamic centers, more.)
C. Wall, an engineer who frequently visited the rotorcraft forum pre-dating this one, had a cryptic post stating (in essence, I believe) that the 1/6th scale model (with it's promising test results) could not be scaled up to a full size aircraft and maintain the necessary strength and rigidity.
In noting the blade weave problem on your website, I fear he may be right. (Please remember, I have no engineering background, this is just my intuition from a distance and is really no better than a wild guess, but bear with me.)
In the battle between Newtonian physics and aerodynamic forces I believe Newtonian physics will not be enough. I believe you will have to co-opt aerodynamic forces to help with the stabilization of the rotor system. In viewing your website diagrams with the triangular tip weights, I believe you are attempting to do this.
This letter is a note of encouragement, should the blade weave problem not be mitigated by your approach, to continue this line of testing. If a passive aerodynamic approach does not prove effective I do wish you accept the possibility of elevating to another level of complexity and seeking an active aerodynamic approach. On the simplistic level I operate on, I would like to see elliptical winglets pop out of the rotor tip weights, once per revolution, on the retreating blade and help stabilize the entire rotor system. C. Wall also mentioned this approach, I believe. Other possibilities (which may be discussed on this open forum by far more educated people than I, I hope) may be active airfoils which I believe were noted on Univ. of Marylands? website.
I do hope your simpler approach is effective, (I equate it to Juan de la Cierva's intuitive leap, personally) nonetheless, the purpose of this letter (and wild-eyed dreaming) is to encourage you and your group to accept a complex solution to a complex problem, should the need arise. Time and further testing will ultimately tell.
In closing, thanks for the time to read this message and good luck with your magnificent efforts to do the unprecedented. Sincerely, Darrell Wittke
Dear Sirs,
As a long-time gyroplane fan/hobbyist, I would like to commend your efforts in regard to elevating our beloved but much maligned gyrocopters into a truly unique and extremely capable aircraft.
Several posts on this forum recently (regarding C. Wall and Cartercopter rotor stabilization) has prompted this letter of encouragement to look to the future as time and testing reveal if your approach alone is feasible.
Your approach, as I understand it, is to use what I will henceforth term Newtonian physics (meaning a huge centrifugal force (or centripetal accel. :) ) created by tip weights and a very strong, stiff rotor constructed of the best and latest composite fiber construction) which are used to stabilize the rotor against what I will henceforth term aerodynamic forces (eg. shifting aerodynamic centers, more.)
C. Wall, an engineer who frequently visited the rotorcraft forum pre-dating this one, had a cryptic post stating (in essence, I believe) that the 1/6th scale model (with it's promising test results) could not be scaled up to a full size aircraft and maintain the necessary strength and rigidity.
In noting the blade weave problem on your website, I fear he may be right. (Please remember, I have no engineering background, this is just my intuition from a distance and is really no better than a wild guess, but bear with me.)
In the battle between Newtonian physics and aerodynamic forces I believe Newtonian physics will not be enough. I believe you will have to co-opt aerodynamic forces to help with the stabilization of the rotor system. In viewing your website diagrams with the triangular tip weights, I believe you are attempting to do this.
This letter is a note of encouragement, should the blade weave problem not be mitigated by your approach, to continue this line of testing. If a passive aerodynamic approach does not prove effective I do wish you accept the possibility of elevating to another level of complexity and seeking an active aerodynamic approach. On the simplistic level I operate on, I would like to see elliptical winglets pop out of the rotor tip weights, once per revolution, on the retreating blade and help stabilize the entire rotor system. C. Wall also mentioned this approach, I believe. Other possibilities (which may be discussed on this open forum by far more educated people than I, I hope) may be active airfoils which I believe were noted on Univ. of Marylands? website.
I do hope your simpler approach is effective, (I equate it to Juan de la Cierva's intuitive leap, personally) nonetheless, the purpose of this letter (and wild-eyed dreaming) is to encourage you and your group to accept a complex solution to a complex problem, should the need arise. Time and further testing will ultimately tell.
In closing, thanks for the time to read this message and good luck with your magnificent efforts to do the unprecedented. Sincerely, Darrell Wittke