Looks like a neat configuration for an ultralight recreational helicopter

[Rotor Rooter]

New Concept RC Heli maiden flight - YouTube

New Concept Heli 2nd Test flight - YouTube

Perhaps;
Pitch by longitudinal weight-shift,
Yaw by opposing longitudinal pitch.
Roll by differential thrust.

Taking simplicity to the Max.




Dave

[Arnie Madsen]

I want one. ..... This is about the best RC helicopter I have seen yet.

He talks about stabilizing linkages to the rotors .... wonder if it is tilting each rotor individually .... could not see a swashplate .... hard to tell.

[quadrirotor]

No autorotation...

The best manageable recreationnal ultralight rotorcraft is this one!

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/sho...=ultralitecoax

[Rotor Rooter]

Arnie,

Yes it does look very impressive.

He talks about stabilizing linkages to the rotors .... wonder if it is tilting each rotor individually .... could not see a swashplate .... hard to tell.

Hans, who is currently building an Interleaving model, thinks the same as us, in that the 2 rotors rotate independently about the axis of their respective tubular spars.

It appears that the axis of the spars is on the centerline of the rotor&motors' centers of mass and perhaps drag. This means that relatively little force is required to rotate the rotors fore and aft.

For the Coaxial it would be more difficult to pivot the rotorheads (and drive-train) about their centers of mass and drag. The pictures and sketches on the earlier Bensen's B-9 Little Zipster show this problem.


André,

No autorotation...

The best manageable recreational ultralight rotorcraft is this one! http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/sho...=ultralitecoax

I politely but strongly disagree with the above.

A few of the reasons are;

1. The large control force required to tip the Coaxial rotorhead, mentioned previously.
2. If the disk areas of the Coaxial and the Side-by-Side are the same then the Coaxial will require 40% more power than the Side-by-Side. See half way down OTHER: ~ Aerodynamics - Rotor Disk - Dual Configurations. IMO, it can be assumed that this 40% difference will also be applicable to the non-powered autorotation rate of descent.
3. #1 indicates that the rotor diameters on the Side-by-Side can be increased and this will further reduce the descent rate in autorotation, while also further reducing the HP and weight required for powered flight.

I very strongly believe in the bilaterally symmetrical configurations, nature-ly . IMHO, it is the Intermeshing, the Interleaving, the Side-by-Side, the Quadrotor, and an advanced form of the Tiltrotor that will finally take rotorcraft into it's long awaited 2nd-Generation.


Dave

[Brent Drake]

My plays video games with a model very similar to this on Xbox in the Halo game.

[Rotor Rooter]

The following two linked Web pages are 'in progress' workups of an extremely light and/or backpack side-by-side helicopter, partially motivated by the RC configuration in post #1.

1/ It is looking good, really good. OTHER: Helicopter - Inside - Side-by-Side - Electrotor-SloMo

2/ A related workup is about the potential to use a light-weight on-board Genset as an alternative to today's heavy batteries. OTHER: Electrical - Power Storage - Genset ~ for Electrotor

___________________

Some hype:

• Thrust to weight ratio can't get any better.
• Flight-controls can't get any simpler.
• Thrust change is instantaneous. Torque-Pitch.
• Autorotation and optimized thrust is by blade Root-Twist
• Motors to have 1:1 ratio with the aero-rotors.
• Easily transportable.

.


Now to start backing up the hype with many boring hours of developmental work and many dollars of prototyping the unique attributes.

Concerns welcomed.
Parallel development welcomed.
Hell, any help is welcomed.


Dave