Synchropter helicopter. [Archive]

Rotor Rooter

09-29-2006, 09:49 AM

New project; :typing: ~ ELECTROTOR (http://www.unicopter.com/ELECTROTOR.html).

The electric motors are an integral part of the rotorhubs. Rotor (http://www.unicopter.com/Electrotor_Rotor.html)
Like all ideas, this has it's pros and cons.

____________________________________

Future project; :spy: ~ Flying Foreskin; - the future of VTOL

Envision an VTOL aircraft without a blade, a wing and a prayer.
Envision a flying skin that does all by rotating its member.
Envision a flying skin that transitions by drooping its foreskin.

This is not a bunch of hot air. It is the Flying Foreskin (http://www.unicopter.com/1427.html)

quadrirotor

09-29-2006, 10:10 AM

Yes we already discussed of that; the problem is located on the battery!...
The best for the moment is to have an electric motor on the tail rotor of a "monorotor" helo as electricity could be drawn from the thermic engine itself!!!(as from an hybride engine...)

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1426

LGoodhind

09-29-2006, 11:58 AM

>The best for the moment is to have an electric motor on the tail rotor of a "monorotor" helo as electricity could be drawned from the thermic engine itself!!!(as from an hybride engine...)

Come on André ... there's a huge hole in this "best for the moment" claim based on the power utilization of a heavier than air flying machine vs a car in city traffic. Why aren't hybrids a good choice for long trips on a freeway?

karlbamforth

09-30-2006, 12:29 AM

Future project; :spy: ~ Flying Foreskin; - the future of VTOL

Envision an VTOL aircraft without a blade, a wing and a prayer.
Envision a flying skin that does all by rotating its member.
Envision a flying skin that transitions by drooping its foreskin.

OK OK, Rooter I have to ask, Why did you choose a name like "Flying Foreskin" ?
Made me laugh but probably not the best publicity for something you want ppl to buy. LOL

quadrirotor

09-30-2006, 04:30 AM

Larry, i mentioned the hybrid engine to show what could be the generator which could be used to feed the tail electric rotor!...The batteries are used only for short time buffering.
Yes, the hybrid car saves only the energy that you usely waste during all the slowing and braking drive...So, yes, an hybrid car is useless (for savings) if you use it for long highway trip!!! Nevertheless, there are savings which come from the aerodynamic shape of the hybrid car!...
So, I never spoke of an hybrid helicopter...only of generator which could be integrated in the engine...so light enough for the power which could be drawn!... :)

quadrirotor

09-30-2006, 05:16 AM

Dave, there is a lot of energy which is wasted in heat!...the efficiency of the electric engine (at best!) 88%!!! ... generation+motorization=~80%...so 20% of the energy of the engine is wasted in heat...
But you could use electric engine for prerotation as described earlier!

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3826

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8358&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1109170376

Rotor Rooter

09-30-2006, 11:33 AM

Ranger,

Your'e correct, 'Flying Foreskin' is a little too sexual. http://www.unicopter.com/Worry.gif

Perhaps 'Flying Carpet', but it may be a little too religious. :o
http://www.markfarrar.co.uk/graphics/carpet.gif

Perhaps there is something political. :noidea:

quadrirotor,

Thanks for the links.

Dave

Ga6riel

09-30-2006, 12:37 PM

looks like that flyin carpet pilot is experiencing 'light flack'

quadrirotor

09-30-2006, 03:26 PM

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3873&highlight=laden

Rotor Rooter

09-30-2006, 04:17 PM

Future Synchropter? ~ Maybe - Maybe not. :rolleyes:

http://www.unicopter.com/1515_Mockup.gif
1/4 scale UniCopter - Electric UAV (http://www.unicopter.com/1515.html)

:violin:

quadrirotor

10-01-2006, 08:58 AM

Dave, your mockups are discouraging!.... :boink:

Here you have a full scale mockup made by serious people!!! :boink:

Those crafts are intended for UAV (passive and active) and shot down pilots recovery!!! :peace:

Rotor Rooter

10-01-2006, 09:53 AM

quadrirotor,

Yeah, but the mockup is still in development. :rolleyes:

The UCAR project was cancelled last December. http://www.unicopter.com/LaughRolling.gif

Dave

quadrirotor

10-01-2006, 12:47 PM

yes Dave, officially!!! :spy:

CLS447

10-01-2006, 02:36 PM

Did you know that Dick Degraw built one many years ago ?

Does anyone have any pics of his machine ?

Rotor Rooter

10-01-2006, 03:09 PM

Chris,

Dick DeGraw's Hummingbird (http://delta.wtr.ru/files/Hummingbird.pdf)

Dave

quadrirotor

10-02-2006, 04:49 AM

Thanks Dave for this article. I had some articles from the PRA Rotorcraft magazine but not as explicative as this one.
Dick ought to make the synchropter more reachable for every one: Dick is a machinest, a mechanics lover, so his crafts are not as simple as they could be...
The "De Bird" is interesting enough for a single gyro, but the ELFINO is not for every one as the jump take off is actually a stunt!
History shows that all those who made a synchropter were successfull!...It seems this set up has a wider range of tolerance.
I think that a Simple Synchropter will save the PRA!...

MikeBoyette

10-02-2006, 05:49 AM

Anrde'
Why are you calling it a stunt?

quadrirotor

10-02-2006, 07:19 AM

Jump take off is High G with many critical operations to follow in a critical laps of time...

Vance

10-02-2006, 08:16 AM

Jump take off is High G with many critical operations to follow in a critical laps of time...

Hello Andre, that still leaves the question; why are you calling it a stunt?

What do you mean by “High G”?

I am not a jump take off enthusiast, but I can see it has value in certain situations.

I was taught in a Robinson 44 to not climb above ten feet until I had reached 40 knots, but there are times when something was in the way and that called for a more complex and dangerous takeoff.

Both operations have risk attached because options are reduced as related to the height-velocity curve and an increased vigilance is required on the part of the pilot. Does that make all short takeoffs in rotorcraft a stunt?

I loved watching Dick do jump take offs. It felt it was expanding the capability of autogiros.

Thank you, Vance

Rotor Rooter

10-02-2006, 10:20 AM

quadrirotor,History shows that all those who made a synchropter were successfull!... Not quite.

Kellett had the right idea, IMO, when he wanted to give the intermeshing configuration 'rigid' rotors with 3 blades each. Unfortunately, an accident was the demize of his company. More; Kellett XR-8 & XR-10 (http://www.unicopter.com/0896.html)

I think that a Simple Synchropter will save the PRA!... I had hoped that the SynchroLite (http://www.unicopter.com/SynchroLite.html) would be a viable craft for the recreational market. Just before starting to make the prototype a reassessment of its viability was done. It became apparent that it would not satisfy the desires of this market. More; Marketability (http://www.unicopter.com/SynchroLite_Marketability.html)

Anyhow, R & D and dreaming is more fun.

Dave

quadrirotor

10-02-2006, 11:35 AM

History shows that all those who made a synchropter were successfull!...
It doesn't mean that you can do anything!!! :der:

Marketability of a homebuilt craft is linked to the fact that the owner must (or feels to) be and stay master of:
-making (if he wants) the craft from raw material as mush as possible;
-maintaining the craft himself (as he judges necessary);
-ownership (he can understand most of the principles integrated in the design, etc...), can modify the craft to some extend;
-using pieces readily from a very near warehouse at a good price (autoparts,etc...);
-the sexy shape of the craft...

That's almost the same "concept" for software from open source!...

But most of the time, the designer-seller wants to stay, actually, the owner of the craft!...sucking as much money as possible!... :sad: :puke:

example:

Someone built the gearboxe+rotorheads+blades, test them to the limits...then sell this group with specifications (howto) to make a homebuilt synchropter!...:peace:

This designer-seller can sell the complete aircraft too...(or parts of...)...etc...

This gearboxe is the one of the Flettner synchro, need only the blades "et voilà"... :yo:

Rotor Rooter

10-02-2006, 12:03 PM

Someone built the gearboxe+rotorheads+blades, test them to the limits...then sell this group with specifications (howto) to make a homebuilt synchropter!... Yes. This is probably a better idea.

One variant of this idea was developed as the Dragonfly (http://www.unicopter.com/Dragonfly.html). Unfortunately, the response was ......... (well actually the response 'wasn't'). http://www.unicopter.com/Cry.gif

The current thread A Helicopter for the Price of a Gyrocopter (http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9900) is another attempt.

quadrirotor

10-02-2006, 12:37 PM

I sent to you a response a long time ago!!! To make a short story:
I said to you that a design must be a response at a market survey...and your design, which is too novator, doesn't fullfill what most of the people wants!
The question is: What most of the people wants?...

From the discussions i had with other pilots, it seems that something that has the fonctionnalities of the Hummingbird of Dick Degraw, with:
-a simpler mechanics (may be with two 503 rotaxes...);
-a sexier shape!!!

From the discussions i had with Dick and others, it seems the yaw authority is the weakest point of this set up...So R&DD must go toward the CALVERT set up...TTS a pusher prop blowing a rudder!?

And may be: post #126

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2105&page=4&highlight=%22simplified+synchropter%22

Rotor Rooter

10-02-2006, 12:58 PM

OK

Then, if there is an interest in a Intermeshing 'project',
let the other suggestions come in.

http://www.unicopter.com/ThumbsUp.gif

quadrirotor

10-03-2006, 06:23 AM

OK, no less than that! :spy:
Now, how can we make this affordable!? :der:

quadrirotor

10-03-2006, 07:15 AM

OK, Dick Degraw is the KING!!! :first:

Rotor Rooter

10-06-2006, 10:51 AM

quadrirotor,

Here's a picture for you.

This is all that is left of the worlds most advanced helicopter of its time. (http://www.unicopter.com/Flettner_2.html)

quadrirotor

10-06-2006, 01:27 PM

Thanks Dave, what a pity!...
This one is not bad either!...

Rotor Rooter

10-25-2006, 01:58 PM

quadrirotor,

A gentleman has done a tremendous amount of work, number of years ago, toward the building of a full size replica of the Flettner Fl-282. It was to be flown once and then place in a museum. He went to England twice to reverse-engineer the only Fl-282 frame in existence [picture in my previous posting]. He had even arranged the loan of the actual engine used in the helicopter. In addition, he supplied information to Steve Coates, which was incorporated into his book 'Helicopters of the Third Reich'.

Unfortunately, we have not e-mailed in a long time.

You have mentioned on the forum and in a private message the possibility of a low cost synchropter being built. IMHO, it may be a long time, if ever, before this sort of a craft comes about. This gives the reasons. (http://www.unicopter.com/SynchroLite_Marketability.html)

Coincidentally, I just had a long conversation with one of your former countrymen in France. He, me, and a couple of others have expressed an interest in developing and building a version of the UniCopter.

Should there be others who might be interested in participating, in any way, in the development, or manufacturing, or testing, etc. of the various components required for a very advanced rotorcraft, a posting or private message will be welcomed.

The dream never dies.

Dave

quadrirotor

10-25-2006, 02:21 PM

quadrirotor,

.................

You have mentioned on the forum and in a private message the possibility of a low cost synchropter being built. IMHO, it may be a long time, if ever, before this sort of a craft comes about. This gives the reasons. (http://www.unicopter.com/SynchroLite_Marketability.html)

.................

Dave

Hi Dave;
the reasons you gave concern the Synchrolite and the unicopter, which is not an homebuilt oriented design...

The main advantage of my concept (THE TOURINGCOPTER) is that there is no swash-plate, only push rod (inside the masts) for collectives (roll authority), so this eliminates a lots of problems (birds strikes fear, vibrations in transitionning, fatigue, etc...) and with the fan blowing on a rudder and elevator, you have a full authority on yaw and pitch. The kaman or flettner synchro are a bit lousy on yaw...

One other advantage of the concept is the use of automobile parts for the transmission, a bit like the philosophy of:

http://www.pawneeaviation.com/

My proposition is a concept which is really homebuilt oriented; and an open concept.

The concept of the Hummingbird of Dick degraw is, essentially, the one of the Flettner 282...

The Unicopter: scaring and too small!...

Rotor Rooter

10-25-2006, 03:57 PM

quadrirotor,is that there is no swash-plate, only push rod (inside the masts) for collectives (roll authority), This sounds very similar to the Mini 500. If so, its operation is basically like a swashplate, I think.

This is a list of every intermeshing helicopter, which I have ever come across. (http://www.unicopter.com/A014.html#Intermeshing)

Different strokes for different folks.

My 'humble' objective is simply to overcoming Charles Kaman's concern, when he said;

"You only have one pure helicopter development program in the country, the Boeing-Sikorsky Comanche, and you have one convertiplane, now called a tiltrotor, that's the Bell-Boeing Osprey. That's all there is and there are no others in sight. None on the horizon, so what's being bought was developed a long time ago, 20 years or more, or variations are being bought.
So the verdict is clear, there isn't any other thing that's going to happen on the helicopter front." :eek:

Time for Generation II Rotorcraft :D

Dave

quadrirotor

10-26-2006, 01:27 AM

Dave,
You are right for the mini500, this is a kind of swash plate...but the rotors of theTouringcopter have NO CYCLIC only one push rod (for collective) by mast which is actuated, like the tail rotor of a "monorotor", through a double concentric row balls bearing, beneath the gearboxe...very rustic hardware!

The touringcopter is HOMEBUILT ORIENTED (no electrinic gizmo for piloting assistance in flight!) for touring private flight...but Charles Kaman is right for the military market...there is a convergence towards the monorotor with a (may be an electric) fan tailrotor and The QUADRIROTOR (no swash-plate, i think...)

The QUADRIROTOR... and its private imitation! the Xantus...

quadrirotor

10-26-2006, 05:13 AM

Dave, can you imagine a small (Chinook or Banana) quadrirotor that is a tandem of two systems of simplified synchropter, linked by a non-working drive-shaft (working only if an engine fails)...four small engines, no swash-plate, no tail-rotor, autorotation enable!...a flying Winabago!... The RVcopter!... :D

Rotor Rooter

10-26-2006, 10:01 AM

can you imagine a small (Chinook or Banana) quadrirotor
No. http://www.unicopter.com/Wink.gif

quadrirotor

10-26-2006, 11:05 AM

:lalala: :drama: :bored:

Rotor Rooter

10-26-2006, 11:15 PM

quadrirotor.

Here is a thesis on a small (homebuilt) quad-rotor, which might be of interest. (www.personal.psu.edu/lnl/theses/HanfordThesis2005.pdf)

Dave

quadrirotor

10-27-2006, 06:22 AM

Thanks Dave;

if life is boring you, take this one!

Ga6riel

10-28-2006, 11:50 AM

quadrirotor.

Here is a thesis on a small (homebuilt) quad-rotor, which might be of interest. (www.personal.psu.edu/lnl/theses/HanfordThesis2005.pdf)

Dave

interesting thesis'
i dont think they managed a successful degree of ease of control, but there is clearly scope to do better (this is the standpoint from which these machines ought be judged, payload as an aside)
and while satisfactory for a UAV
what about autorotation ?

quadrirotor

10-29-2006, 07:21 AM

Dave, i was told that three guys are building a synchrop...It looks like the one on the photo with two big rudders at 45° for better yaw control (they want to use it as a test-bed towards a composite airplane-shaped airframe). It has teetering rotors which look like EXEC ones with limited teetering by a kind of centered multilayered bushing with progressive hardness, no delta3, and a T-shaped plate on a big spring with two bearings as swash-plates, for full control of the pitch of the blades (as FLETTNER did), control through push-pull rigid cables, a Subaru EJ25 engine with the original disk-clutch, bell housing, with multi-third-car-members as gear boxes including a sprag oneway clutch...(seems heavy but rugged...)
Did they contact you?

Rotor Rooter

10-29-2006, 09:55 AM

quadriritor,

A number of people, who are building or want to build intermeshing helicopters, have made contact over the years. The one that you mention does not sound familiar.

Dave

quadrirotor

10-29-2006, 01:33 PM

The PRAGA synchro., anymore infos???

http://www.vrtulnik.cz/vyroba.htm

Could the pitch control be by weight shifting and roll+yaw by collectives only? may be a good idea for an ultralight synchropter...

Ga6riel

10-29-2006, 06:51 PM

certainly the success/and or/failure of these helicopter types is dependent upon the availability of a suitable transmission system

quadrirotor

10-30-2006, 03:59 AM

Rob, this a routine for your hardware: :)

10 OPEN "YOUR MIND"
20 GO TO POST #45
30 READ "POST"
40 UNDERSTAND "POST"
50 GO TO CONCLUSIONS
60 GO TO SUBROUTINE "JUSTDOIT"
70 STOP
80 END

:yo:

LGoodhind

10-30-2006, 06:13 AM

Rob, this a routine for your hardware: :)

10 OPEN "YOUR MIND"
20 GO TO POST #45
30 READ "POST"
40 UNDERSTAND "POST"
50 GO TO CONCLUSIONS
60 GO TO SUBROUTINE "JUSTDOIT"
70 STOP
80 END

:yo:

You were told by someone that three other unnamed someones were doing something? What's to understand?

FYI ... the reason you keep running in circles is because line 60 is inaccessable.

quadrirotor

10-30-2006, 06:54 AM

Lgood;

GO TO 10
What there is to understand is that the transmission can be built with three rear ends which we can find in the car industry:
-one in the middle for primary reduction and sprag carrier, splits the power on each of its sides...
-one on each side as right angle trans, secondary reduct...
I let you imagine the details...

Yes line 60 depends on your environment and resources: mine are bugged for the moment!...

quadrirotor

10-30-2006, 08:03 AM

Now i think it's more clear! it's up to you for the details!...:rapture:

Ga6riel

10-30-2006, 08:39 AM

10 Open "your Mind"
20 Go To Post #45
30 Read "post"
40 Understand "post"
50 Go To Conclusions
54 IF Conclusions=transmission GOTO 60, ELSEIF GOTO 55
55 Loop: Line 10
60 Go To Subroutine "justdoit"
70 Stop
80 End

:)

Rotor Rooter

10-30-2006, 12:32 PM

That programming language looks like 'Basic'. In fact it looks very basic.

IF we put in a recursive loop THEN we can go around in circles forever, and forever. and ...... ;)

quadrirotor.

Thanks for the Praga link.
Could line 60 be changed to '60 GO TO SUBROUTINE "MAKELOWCOSTMODEL"?'

msmfi

10-30-2006, 01:22 PM

Czech Republic, under German occupation, was a manufacturing side for German aviation during WW2.
Among others the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 was produced there....
(http://www.vrtulnik.cz/fa-223.htm)

Regarding the syncropters ...
(and thanks: to http://www.stars21.com/index.html?pname=latin2&aname=czech&fname=dict_cs&word= )

Model: Praga I exp
Stage: preliminary design
Engine: Praga DR (59 kW)

Model: Praga E-I
Stage: Mock-up & separate parts/mechanisms. Rotor (1:1 scale) tested in wind tunnel (tower).
(http://www.vrtulnik.cz/aero-vysocany.htm)
Engine: Praga M-107 (81 kW)

Projects abandoned in favour of more classic design : Praga XE-II
(http://www.vrtulnik.cz/xe-ii.htm)

quadrirotor

10-30-2006, 02:27 PM

the drive train i described was the first which was intended to be on the TOURINGCOPTER (full control on the pitches of the blades, a simple airplane tail like the FL282)...There is a simpler way to make the transmission...with three small engines, a blown tail...
BTW the blown tail seems to be in fashion: here an example of a proposition for a low cost (low noise) airplane!...

The main trans (seen from above, here), the heart of the simplified synchro is made by two rear ends, side by side, with and angle between 24 and 26 degrees. Each rear end is linked to a small engine with its primary reduction (Rotax 503 with an C reductboxe with centrifugal clutch and a sprag bearing on the PTO). The two rear ends are synchronized by a cog belt and a pulley on each driver shaft. The third engine drives the rear propeller.

I am waiting for your comments.

quadrirotor

11-01-2006, 04:12 AM

To make a single seat ultralight synchro, there are front and rear final drives, in the domain of the ATV and motorcycle, which could be used...As a matter of facts, the synchropter is the easiest and the more reliable helico to homebuilt (no tail rotor) and the easiest to pilot (no tail rotor)...

LGoodhind

11-01-2006, 06:40 AM

Andre'-

Yesterday or the day before you said your three guys were "me, myself, and I" .. I was going to ask you yesterday about this but between then and now that comment has been edited out of this thread.

Direct question- when you posted...

"Dave, i was told that three guys are building a synchrop...It looks like the one on the photo with two big rudders at 45° for better yaw control (they want to use it as a test-bed [...] push-pull rigid cables, a Subaru EJ25 engine with the original disk-clutch, bell housing, with multi-third-car-members as gear boxes including a sprag oneway clutch...(seems heavy but rugged...)"

Were you lying about the "i was told that three guys are building a synchrop" part? If not what three guys are you talking about? If it's a third person story who related it to you and why did you believe their veracity?

Dave-

You don't need recursion to go in circles forever. A VAX did just fine with the following program:

-- pseudo-code source for VMS idle process
10$: GOTO 10$

Of course this looks like the definition of recursion...

Recursion: (see recursion)

...but that's only because we share the common pattern language of dictionaries. A loop is a loop and it's only recursion if you call it and establish a new context.

quadrirotor

11-01-2006, 07:59 AM

Mister Larry Goodhind, read all my posts, and you’ll see that there is no lie there !...

There are so few people who give, and so many who take without giving anything…In what side are you, Mister Lgood? Moreover it seems you are a trouble maker!... I read back some of your posts (as I didn’t remember any thing from you), and I am so bored that I put you on my “IGNORE LIST”, I am sure i’ll lose nothing, and I’ll spare time…

Thank you Mister Lgood, I will not be able to answer you from now on, as I will not read your posts!...

As you don’t appreciate my posts, I would like you to do the same: put my name on your “ignore list”…

Bye bye Mister Lgood!...:wave:

LGoodhind

11-01-2006, 08:25 AM

Andre'- Yesterday you had posted that the three guys were "me, myself, and I" and then edited it out. It sounded to me like you were admitting a prank and I asked you a direct question for clarification. Fictionalized sources are lies. A person who uses fictionalized sources is a liar. Any problems so far?

Your suggestion I reread all your posts (or to be more accurate look at the pictures and the classic "now do you see you close minded fools!" caption) is a silly way to respond to a request for sources; you have no need to wave your fist in protest other than to obsificate what you were doing with the other hand at the time.

Answer the question, get your well deserved apology, and then move on ... simple.

C. Beaty

11-01-2006, 06:28 PM

quadrirotor

11-02-2006, 05:21 AM

I presume you two genii understand a synchopter isn’t quite as simple as it looks.

Since the rotors aren’t in the same plane, torque isn’t completely balanced; there is a residual nose-up moment with conventional rotation direction; that is, when the outside blade is the retreating blade. Not necessarily a bad thing, the rotor thrust vector will always pass to the rear of the CG.

Yaw control can take two different paths; (1) differential fore/aft cyclic which provides pure yaw* but is somewhat marginal, or (2) differential collective which tends to produce coordinated turns.

In case (2) there is a control reversal between powered flight and autorotation. Some sort of pedal reversing mechanism must be incorporated.

Dick DeGraw’s synchopter incorporates a pedal reversing mechanism.

*Oops, wasn’t thinking clearly. Differential fore/aft cyclic does not produce pure yaw; tilting the rotors into differential planes produces adverse roll.

Thanks Chuck, to give me the opportunity to clarify the Thing...I wrote many things in the former posts but, may be, it was not very clear...

Yes, C.Beaty, and there is the same kind of problems with the coaxial helo...control reversal in case of autorotation...
This is one the main problems for the acceptance of the synchropter by the homebuilder or by the sunday pilot (Dick Degraw is a wizard...).

That's why i choose to have a blown tail and no cyclics on the TOURINGCOPTER...This set up precludes all the problems as:

In all phases, the collectives give more lift.
Fore and backwards stick for the elevator control.(efficient without the prop at about 20 mph).
Right-left stick for differential collective (right stick gives more collective on the left rotor, so a right roll and a coordinated right yaw).
Rudder pedals for the rudder...No reversing mechanism!...

At hover:
-there is a pitch up effect, due to angle of the two masts, which is compensated by the elevator, which vectorizes the thrust of the prop downwards, giving an added lift...

Then:
- The blown tail gives full authority on yaw and pitch;
- the differential collectives gives roll control with a coodinated yaw, due to the difference of torque between the two rotors...

In case of the loss of the two engines driving the rotors:
-There is a pitch down effect for the loss of torque on the rotors (see above)...which enhances the autorotation first action...
-roll is enable but there is an adverse yaw which can be managed by the rudder...no need for reversal of commands!...
-the rear engine can not sustain flight but gives more choices for a full stop landing...the flight can be sustained with two of the three engines...

-if the rear engine is off, the autorotation or the flight must be mantained at more than 20 mph, to keep, the rudder and elevator, efficient...as a gyrocopter...

I think that the Touringcopter is as easy to pilot as a Cessna 172...

No swash plate and no tail rotor...

karlbamforth

11-02-2006, 05:53 AM

Andre,

This may sound a bit simple but if the tail engine is running won't it be difficult to hover? Some of the residual thrust must be rearwards therefore pushing the aircraft forwards.
I have worked on quite large military helis while they are hovering and just to push with a screwdriver moves the heli away from you. We eventually worked as a team with 2 engineers one to work and the other to push the other way and offer a resistance to stop the heli moving, this system was much simpler that the pilot trying to control it.

quadrirotor

11-02-2006, 06:55 AM

Karl, the Touringcopter is not intended to hover vertically, but transitionning, after a very very short run up...The tail surfaces are efficient at less than full tail engine power. Albeit, hovering vertically is possible by using elevator and collective in a coordinated way: stick backwards, nose up...

Rotorhead

11-03-2006, 02:58 AM

These were from Greencastle " I Think "

Rotorhead

11-03-2006, 03:12 AM

few more pics from greencastle

quadrirotor

11-03-2006, 01:05 PM

Thanks for the photos, Craig.

Rotor Rooter

11-04-2006, 10:04 PM

Ga6riel

11-05-2006, 12:38 AM

quadrirotor

11-05-2006, 04:16 AM

andre
i like the transmission arrangement, i hadnt thought of that
but you would still need to support the shafts at the top
add bearings support frame etc
you could ofcourse put the transmission at the top and eliminate all that
yes its a high CG but mechanicly simpler (ok, for a shorter mast as possible...)

....but belt slippage would be catastrophic on either

The cog belt doesn't work in flight (like the drive shaft in the Osprey V22), it is used for synchronization of the rotors when there is a differentail of power need (differential of collectives) and in case of the shut down of one engine...in this case, the belt drives half the power of one engine...this belt can be largely overdesigned, not a big deal. The link of the tail rotor of some monorotors is scaring...and most of the time, the loss of the tail rotor is catastrophic!...
There was a case of desynchronization at the beginning of the history of a french synchropter; it was not catastrophic, the power was cut and the synchro went safely in autorotation straight ahead!... anyway the first
feet of the blade must be designed to bear a contact...

or alternately
some differential sets had bearings and joints at the shafts, made for swing axle cars
triumph sports cars were so equiped
gear speeds and loads appear ok at a glance
Yes, if you are not comfortable with the simplified set up, you can use the one discribed in post #52, which is the one you tell. The brake down of one of the homocinetic joints is also a concern...It's up to you! but the concept of the synchropter is the safest of the helo concepts: the Huskie synchro was the only helo which ended its use life without a mechanical failure: http://www.unicopter.com/

you say no swash plate, id be interested to see the rotor head detail
The top is like the rotor of the Dick degraw ELFINO, an hollow mast with one push tube, a double concentric raw of ball bearing beneath the trans to push on the command tube...(it's like the set up of a monorotor helico tail rotor...)

quadrirotor

11-05-2006, 04:23 AM

Please say it ain't true http://www.unicopter.com/Cry.gifhttp://www.unicopter.com/NoFreeLunch2.jpg
___________________________

Trivial Question; or is it Trivia Question?

The coaxial Kamovs use differential collective. It is said that that the mechanical reversal of the pedals is accomplished by the lifting and lowering of the collective lever. I wonder what happens during an autorotative landing in a strong crosswind when the pilot pulls up on the collective to recover the rotational inertia of the rotors?

Dave, i don't know how works this Kamov; anyway if you use the collective at the flare, you are in some kind of motorized flight (with the inertia of the rotors...); start a new thread for the coaxial set up. I have some ideas, on my scrapbook, about a simplified coax...

Al_Hammer

11-05-2006, 09:13 AM

The coaxial Kamovs use differential collective. It is said that that the mechanical reversal of the pedals is accomplished by the lifting and lowering of the collective lever. I wonder what happens during an autorotative landing in a strong crosswind when the pilot pulls up on the collective to recover the rotational inertia of the rotors?

Dave, the tail rotor of a conventional helicopter is effective during autorotation up until the point where the pilot enters a flare and then levels off. At this point the rotor is not receiving anymore inflow and the rotor speed starts to decay. Then the pilot pulls collective to cushion the touchdown and the RRPM decays very rapidly.
The yaw control, being a function of Tail rotor rpm, probably decays exponentially at this point. In other words, there isn't much of any yaw control once you pull collective and I suspect this may be the case in an intermesher as well, so re-reversal of the controls is not of much consequence during this phase. By the time the collective is pulled past the 30% point (where the reverser kicks in), the helicopter is nearly on the ground anyway.

In a crosswind, yaw authority would be briefly lost during the touchdown phase.
If at all possible, the helicopter should be headed into the wind during an autorotation to reduce landing slide and sideslip/yaw problems.
This thread has an excellent description of the yaw mechanism of an intermesher:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-222277.html

Rotor Rooter

11-05-2006, 11:57 AM

Quadrirotor,

You said;
start a new thread for the coaxial set up
What! Take a step backward? No way. :)

You might find the following rough & dirty idea for an intermeshing helicopter of interest.
Helicopter - Intermeshing - Belt Driven (http://www.unicopter.com/1539.html)

Al,

The posting by HDW is excellent.

The statment "The primary purpose of the DCS linkage is to increase the output of the already present differential cyclic control ( more fore / aft tilting of the rotors ) so there will be adequate directional control whenever the reverser is in, or near, the neutral area." is an advantage that the Intermeshing configuration can have and the Coaxial configuration cannot have.

Even with this DSC linkage a Kaman pilot has mentioned that non-autorortative flying with the collective in a low position can be a little 'interesting'.

Dave

quadrirotor

11-05-2006, 12:29 PM

Dave, your new belt driven synchro is not bad...but you'd better have two small engines...your driving belt does not work very well as you draw it. And your two driving belts could be used for reduction purposes also. And you'll get the same set up as the Touringcopter...

Rotor Rooter

11-05-2006, 12:57 PM

quadrirotor,your driving belt does not work very well as you draw it.If you're concerned about sufficient wrap around the sheaves then use double-
V-belts and idler sheaves. In fact one of the idler sheaves could be used as the 'soft start.

The only sheave that requires lots of wrap is the one on the engine. This is because;
~ It will have the smallest diameter.
~ It is transmitting all the power, whereas the sheaves at the rotors are each taking only half the power.

Helping this is the fact that the 'V' of the belt will probably be a deep V due to the requirement for a low center of gravity.

Just some babbling.

Dave

Cheap and dirty.

quadrirotor

11-06-2006, 03:49 AM

Here you have a video of the first homebuilt synchropter: Dick Degraw Hummingbird...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6mDK9XhklE

karlbamforth

11-06-2006, 07:03 AM

Great video, are there anymore ?
Looks like Dick had all the issues pretty much sorted.

quadrirotor

11-13-2006, 04:29 AM

One of the latest design with a blown tail!... :D

Piasecki H-60; 2004:

http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/piasecki_h-60-r.html

quadrirotor

12-24-2006, 03:39 PM

To clarify how the Touringcopter works:

I wrote many things in the former posts but, may be, it was not very clear...

The Synchropters, the Kaman Huskie H-43, the Kamax, the Flettner FL282,
The Degraw Hummingbird, etc...can not be accepted by rotornauts because like with the coaxial helo...there is a reversal of the controls in case of autorotation...So you have a mixer and a inverser, which are beyond the interests of the rotornauts. Moreover, there are unexpected problems of control in yaw in some phases of the flight... (told by Kaman pilots, UBW and H-43 on PPRUNE...). There are also some vibrations (and potentially resonnances), not well documented...Dick degraw put one rotor in advance of some degrees versus the other to preclude some vibe...

Those are the main problems for the acceptance of the synchropter by the homebuilder or by the sunday pilot (Dick Degraw is a wizard...).

That's why i choose to have a blown tail and no cyclics on the TOURINGCOPTER...This set up precludes all the problems as:

In all phases, the collectives give more lift.
Fore and backwards stick for the elevator control.(efficient without the prop at about 20 mph).
Right-left stick for differential collective (right stick gives more collective on the left rotor, so a right roll and a coordinated right yaw).
Rudder pedals for the rudder...No reversing mechanism!...

At hover:
-there is a pitch up effect, due to angle of the two masts, which is compensated by the elevator, which vectorizes the thrust of the prop downwards, giving an added lift...

Then:
- The blown tail gives full authority on yaw and pitch;
- the differential collectives gives roll control with a coodinated yaw, due to the difference of torque between the two rotors...

In case of the loss of the two engines driving the rotors:
-There is a pitch down effect for the loss of torque on the rotors (see above)...which enhances the autorotation first action...
-roll is enable but there is an adverse yaw which can be managed by the rudder...no need for reversal of commands!...
-the rear engine can not sustain flight but gives more choices for a full stop landing...the flight can be sustained with two of the three engines...

-if the rear engine is off, the autorotation or the flight must be mantained at more than 20 mph, to keep, the rudder and elevator, efficient...as a gyrocopter...

I think that the Touringcopter is as easy to pilot as a Cessna 172...

No swash plate and no tail rotor...

But it's useless to give numbers and pictures...The best could be to built a demonstrator!

PTKay

12-25-2006, 01:09 AM

I buy it...
Excelent idea.

:)

quadrirotor

05-02-2007, 07:58 AM

Just for information:

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html

Rotor Rooter

05-02-2007, 09:14 AM

Quadrirotor.

The following bit of technical information related to the Huskie H-43 may be of interest;

"The Kaman Controllable Twist Rotor was built under contract DAAJ. Presua02-72-C-0092 for the US Army Air Mobility Research and Development Laboratory, Eustis Directorate, Fort Eustin Virginia. The structural substantiation report xxxx xxxxx wrote is Kaman report S-219 written on 8/8/74 and revised in June of 1976. Presumably 6/76 is about when the rotor went in the Ames wind tunnel. The CTR hub and retention consisted of a Sikorsky H-34 hub mated to a K28-110 (H43B) blade grip assembly. The testing was in two phases: a standard 1/rev control test and a higher harmonic control test. The company made money, the government spent money and the rotor didn't make history.

As xxxx xxxxx recall the purpose was to both improve performance by tailoring local angle of attack to local airflow, and to reduce main rotor induced vibration with the multi-cyclic configuration, although multi cyclic could have produced second order aerodynamic benefit."

Dave

quadrirotor

10-19-2007, 07:52 AM

The take off of a Kmax. Looking at two rotors chasing each other could daze you!...Any way it's amazing!!!

(save the target on your disk, you can check the loading, 10 Meg)

http://www.tsis.ch/heli/video/hb-xhj001.wmv

quadrirotor

06-18-2008, 04:36 AM

The Huskie H43 in flight:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXcZ-YCdp4&NR=1

quadrirotor

03-14-2009, 06:44 AM

Take off of the Huskie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SztPlFERpl0&NR=1

quadrirotor

03-14-2009, 08:00 AM

Tandem of two synchropters (QUADRIROTOR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30Ypd8mOjs

quadrirotor

10-31-2009, 12:56 PM

My favorite. :yo:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1060421280522

Here are 74 more of various helicopters.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alexandria-VA/American-Helicopter-Society-History-Committee/58792069606?v=app_2392950137&sb=0

Dave

Thanks Dave.
Some videos on Kellet synchropters and others...

Rotor Rooter

10-31-2009, 04:41 PM

Hi André [quadrirotor]

This MAY be of some interest to you (http://www.unicopter.com/1829.html).
Working up the foot-mounted microlight helicopter is enjoyable but it is also very frustrating. Rick, the other person, wants to start ordering parts, but I want to know exactly where we are going before committing.

IVO's props will not be ideal; the 'home-made' 5 ft blades are moving ahead too slowly; the gear ratio will be different for both; the Coaxial should have crown and pinion gear; the Side-by-Side should have planetary gears; I am sick of designing gear boxes; the coaxial is nice and compact; the side-by-side offers the best lift for the horsepower; and on, and on, and on. :puke:

Last night I decided to evaluate the Intermeshing, as a compromise between the other two. The use of extremely rigid rotors and blades in a gimbaled hub may result in this configuration being the most viable. :noidea:

Conceptualizing is fun but detailing component parts is like working at a boring job; and not even getting paid. http://www.unicopter.com/HeadBang.gif

End of therapeutic rant.
Dave

utahgyrocop

10-31-2009, 10:12 PM

Is anybody building a synchropter?
Has anybody any technical info on this kind of helo?

http://www.kamanaero.com/helicopters/kmax.html

I wasn't sure what the damn thing was other than a very, VERY, quiet twin blade sycronized helicopter that had no tail rotor.

Coolest thin I had seen in a long time.

I am glad you posted this because I searched the net for several hours and could not find the evil little bastard.

Don't know where it was going, but it flew over SLC on Monday!!!

Stay safe.

quadrirotor

11-01-2009, 05:24 AM

Dave;
Very interesting...
Gimbaled hub is the way to go, and vectorizing tail too...But, the backpack helo does not correspond to my profil of mission...The backpack helo is a toy! :(

This synchropter is my favorite because you can autorotate and you have no tail rotor:

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1060421280522

TNVD

01-21-2010, 02:15 PM

An article about Flettner FL282 - http://uploading.com/files/get/9WXPLUML/

could be interesting

Rotor Rooter

01-21-2010, 04:23 PM

The downloaded .pdf file would not open, for me, and there was a message saying that 'The file could be corrupted.'

quadrirotor

10-29-2010, 10:33 AM

An other small one but with a turbine!...

YouTube - Flettner Kamax by designer Volker Jung Camera helicopter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmrnmTiw18E&feature=player_embedded)

An other one, very stable! :D

YouTube - kamax rc www.helicrazy.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4-Zu2t69NM&feature=related)

Rotor Rooter

10-29-2010, 11:37 AM

quadrirotor,

Thanks for the video. Perhaps one of the reasons that more people do not consider building model and recreational intermeshing helicopters is the need for miter gears with custom angles.

This is the combined transmission, rotorhubs & flight-controls from the Flettner FL-282
http://www.unicopter.com/FlettnerPrincipalAssy.gif

_________________________________

Just about all of the future VTOL aircraft proposals do not include a tail-rotor.

Perhaps the above Avatar is now obsolete.

How about this for a new one? :)

http://www.unicopter.com/Nemesis_Gold_20.gif
Bilateral Symmetry

Dave

quadrirotor

10-29-2010, 12:55 PM

Dave, you forgot all we have talked about for eight years!... :(
I made propositions not to use special gears...For homebuilding!:der:

Rotor Rooter

10-29-2010, 01:28 PM

Dave, you forgot all we have talked about for eight years!... :(
I made propositions not to use special gears...For homebuilding!:der:

You're right. You did. :sad: Give a link to a thread or post to refresh a deteriorating mind.

quadrirotor

10-30-2010, 06:20 AM

You're right. You did. :sad: Give a link to a thread or post to refresh a deteriorating mind.

OK Dave, take care of you! :D

http://www.alzheimer.ca/english/index.php

Rotor Rooter

10-30-2010, 01:14 PM

quadrotor
Good post. http://www.unicopter.com/ThumbsUp.gif

Alzheimer's - limiting consideration about the past.
Prozac - limiting consideration about the future.

Dave

quadrirotor

10-31-2010, 07:56 AM

As a matter of fact, Dave, this very thread is a good start:

For example post #52 and beyond...

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6417&page=4

Rotor Rooter

10-31-2010, 11:07 AM

quadrirotor,

Thanks.

Here are a couple of videos related to your pen name. Talk about aggressive flying!

YouTube - Aggressive Maneuvers for Autonomous Quadrotor Flight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvRTALJp8DM&feature=player_embedded)

YouTube - Aggressive Quadrotor Part II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geqip_0Vjec&feature=player_embedded)

Dave

Rotor Rooter

01-03-2011, 02:11 PM

A model Side-by-Side helicopter video.
The optimum in Lift/Power ratio.

YouTube - Art-Tech K22 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3e4IbLDqYA&feature=player_embedded)

hillberg

01-03-2011, 05:10 PM

The Quads sure sounded angry!!!! Neat toys, liked the sticking to the walls!

quadrirotor

01-04-2011, 04:56 AM

Instead of having side-by-side rotors, you'd better have tandem rotors...You have too much yaw instability with your set-up. You could keep the same commands simplifications: Tilt the two rotors for roll, use only collective for up and down; and, front rotor+ roll to turn...For a R/C is easy to test...but to be a test pilot with this set-up could be frightening!... :eek: Could be tested! :D

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=743&highlight=tandem+rotor+laf01

Rotor Rooter

01-04-2011, 01:09 PM

Hi Andre;

Some support for the Side-by-Side. :)

The early Tandem helicopters used to be flown sideways when providing safety support for fighter planes departing and arriving on aircraft carriers. The vibration from fore/aft rotors was excessive.

Hanna Reitsch , on the recent thread, The last flight of Hanna Reitsch (http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28370&highlight=Hanna) was one of the very first to fly a helicopter and live to a very old age. This first flight was in a side-by-side craft.

The American version of the Focke-Wulf Fw 61 (http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/fw-61.php) Side-by-Side helicopter nearly beat out Igor's crude 4-rotor helicopter (http://www.unicopter.com/1607.html) for the right to be the first provider of helicopters to the US Armed Services.

Dave