4th servo actuation with the changes. Small adjustments here and there. Lower mast bearing mount changed from doubling as the upper motor mount to now being the lower motor mount/lower mast bearing. Couplings are too long for a drive train to spur. Going back to pinion direct to reduction gear, but motor will be about 4 mm lower tha original configuration.
Sorry folks, the net was down. A lot of CF work around upper mast bearing, lower mast bearing spacing, etc. Waiting for alloy steel rod for actual mast. Tail rotor was attached and rotated down and forward to allow the tail rotor blade tip path to have clearence from the main rotor. Lower airframe has 2 additional CF braces from the vertical struts to aft to correct the torrsional flex. Tight fit but it has enough clearence between the two airframes.
There will be additional changes to the hub over this week-end. My laptop is back on line.
I had forgotten that there are a handful of considerations when scaling down or up between small and full scale. Most RC helos have rigid hubs and utilize blade bending to negate disymmetry of lift, so this week end I will be restoring the hub assembly back to and "RC" heli style hub. The mass/weight consideration apply to larger and full scale helos that utilize semi-rigid rotor hubs that teeter. The directional control will still be attained with the mechanical morphing airframe. In this vid clip I state that I will use a 3 bladed rigid, but only if this week-end proves unsuccessful.
Please help me understand? I really admire your diligence. But I truly do not understand what you are trying to accomplish. Maybe some of our engineer types can chime in?
I see from your model that the airframe "morphs" for directional control but my question is why? It morphs only in relation to itself (or the stable part of the frame). However, the only time you'd see morphing is on the ground when part of the frame is grounded and the other part moves. But once in the air, why do you need this movement? Is it to somehow smooth out the ride? Air is fluid and on conventional helicopters, airframes already "morph" so-to-speak in relation to the ground and the air around it.
What do you hope to accomplish? BTW ... I mean no disrespect for your tenacity and knowledge. I am just trying to understand what your project is all about.
I've been in the Infantry 16 years...I got thick skin so no worries about offending me. Google the GEN H4....the concept works, but the GEN H4, as well the airscooter are fixed pitch...not autorotation. But, that's not the reason for my efforts. It started out as something to do....much like crossword puzzles are to some folks. I need to have mechanical problem solving to occupy my mind. The angular differences between the retreating/advancing blades due to the swash plate cause loss in lift when maneuvering from a hover into lateral flight and result in the airframe dropping if not corrected.... as you already well know...power on ..power off etc.....cyclic,collective, throttle and pedal inputs.........I'm trying to cut the required amount of pilot input as well reduce maintenace cost.
DARPA took a look, said it had merit, but the payoff was not high enough for DOD..they said. Aside from this, I sketched up 3 different other designs and gave them to the Army as well the proprietary rights in an effort to get better UAS down to our level. It's just something to do. I've had a few aerospace engineers look it over...none of them gave it bad marks, but all that was said was it was "they're intrigued". I do not really care if someone says something negative about. It's all a paart of freelance R&D. That's all fine and well, but maybe it's a bit far into left field. The end state aside from what I've already mentioned is human machine interface, both mechanically and I hope in software form, but not the fake Sci-fi crap you see on TV. Prediction software that facilitates flight control inputs or corrects them should the pilot fall asleep. I know some form of this exists already, but I'm trying to push it even further. If you got an email, I'll shoot you a few PDFs on my thoughts as far as tempting physics and tap dancing in left field. paper with regard to UAS that was sent to the Army aviation folks, kinematics etc. You and your peers in the engineer world can critique them. Got a buddy at Purdue that looked them over and he said I'm headed in the right direction, but still in left field.
Main rotor balance and rotor-prop partial assembly. Rotor-prop serves the same purpose as having airfoil paddles, but this on is not connected to a swash plate, nor does it even have a swash plate. directional control through mechanical morphing of airframes. 4th CG hang test demonstrated sufficient change in mast incidence for forawrd/aft directiional control. Larger gas prototype will have lateral control as well as forward/aft.
OK.........I assembled everything , clicked on the power to discharge the battery for re-charging.....and the mixer went out. When I upgrade the motors, I failed to upgraded the battery and mixer. My thinking was that "what's a few volts less?" Foolish on my part because the motors pulled too much electricity through mixer....smelled wires burning. Fortunately, the motors are ok, but I need a new mixer and upgraded battery. Sorry everyone.
I made significant changes to the airframe to lower the center of gravity. Both electric motors are still good. Still trying to track down a suitable mixer/speed controller. When I first started this prototype, I did not take into account the servo spacing. My patent drawing are for a manned platform. The servo pushes the upper airframe about 1 inch higher than it should be, displacing the weight and CG in a vertical manner. There is also a good chance that this is also what caused the torsion flex in the airframe and failure during the first tethered flight.
Thanx. You as well. I''ve been working with a frenzy trying to finish my wife's chair and end table along with my project. Got everything loosely put together yesterday and something on the bottom of the motor burnt out, but the motor still works. Some type of circular chip board on the base. Anyway, with the rotor hub loosely tweaked and no servo attachment, with 1/4 bat charge, the helo was lit on it's frame and stable. That surprised me because without the servo attached, the airframes can move forward and aft freely. Hope to have it going. Still need to tweak the hub assembly to tightend down the swah plate input control rods which serve no purpose no with out the swash,
My thread seems to vanish often, but not worries. I'm back from Korea. Got out of synch with regard to helo stuff. Below was first successful flight in Georgia, 2011 of the coax morhing airframe helo w/o swash plate. Motors were under powered and the gas powered that I want to start soon will use right angle gears and "mast within a mast coax configuration". I'm so behind. Retiring this next year. Looking forward to getting out and working in civilian world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38PyI8gQdAI