> Scroll Down to the bottom.
>
> > Amazing airplane seen at Camarillo air show.
> > Roger Parker built this over a long period.
> > As I recall he started in 1993. The fuselage was made
> > in a female mold by Rich Trickle of KIS fame.
> > The wings are glass over foam. This is the real thing
> > and not a mockup. All parts work. Rather brilliant
> > design and much like a VTOL F35. Roger was also friends
> > with Vance Jaqua. Taxi test will be performed at Camarillo
> > this week.
> >
> > Right now it is powered by a Toyota Supra turbo six that weighs
> > 375 pounds. All three fans are driven by shafts
> > and Boston right angle cast iron gear boxes so it is
> > a bit over weight and under powered. Roger is looking for a gas turbine
> > around 800 HP. He might eventually settle for a 300 pound, 800
> > HP turbo 3 rotor if we are lucky.
> >
> > The rear ducts rotate 90 degrees from pure lift to pure thrust. He is
> > well
> > aware of the drag on the ducts so his expectations of top speed are
> > realistic.
> >
> > Counter rotating props are cut
> > down IVO but those will not be used for the final design.
> > He will need variable pitch props to control roll and pitch
> > in the hover and VTOL mode.
> >
> > Roger, here is Perry Mick's web site address on his ducted fan
> > LongEZ for your info.
> >
> >
http://www.bridgingworlds.com/duckt.htm
> >
> > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>
> Pretty cool! I've made some sketches over the years trying to accomplish
> something similar with the canard configuration. I had one drawn up with
> three turbofans, vectored thrust on the two rears, and the front one
> only vectored downward and shutdown in forward flight. Another one with
> large open props. Paul you might still have some of my old 3D sketches.
> More recently I saw a program on the Osprey, got me thinking about it
> again. I was thinking of making a mini-Osprey with a more conventional
> (non-canard) layout with a Bonanza v-tail.
>
> Perry Mick
>
> No doubt about it the V22 is faster than a ducted configuration.
>
> --
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>
> PERRY, would'nt it be easier to do something similar to what CARTER
> of Cartercopter is doing. I, know Paul, isn't impressed with their
> record so far. But I, think they have promise.
> Clifton.
>
>
> It is not just me. Sir Issac Newton would not be impressed.
> When the blade going aft is not moving relative to the air flow
> the helicopter or gyro copter will roll over and fall sooner rather
than later
> regardless of ANYTHING you do to the blade unless Carter can come up
> with some anti gravity device. Yes you might fly for awhile slightly
> beyond that point by transferring the lift to a wing but not much faster.
> Now the entire rotor system becomes the cargo, rotating or not, and
> adds a whole lot of drag.
>
>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/xv-2.htm
>
> Quote:
> "One design strategy is to fly the rotorcraft fast enough to transfer
> lift to separate wings and then stop and fold the rotors. From this point
> in cruise flight, the aircraft is basically an airplane, and maximum
speed
> is a function of aerodynamic design and engine power. Rotor blades, which
> are generally flexible, are difficult to stop or start during forward
flight
> because of the severe stresses and forces resulting from the blades?
flapping
> in the wind.
>
> A stowed- or stopped-rotor aircraft has never flown. Full-scale models
> of both stowed-and stopped-rotor systems have been tested in the National
> Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) wind tunnels at Ames Research
> Center.
>
> NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency developed and
tested
> technologies for a different concept with very high-speed potential
during
> the 1980s called an X-wing, but the program has been scaled back to a
low-level
> research effort. A four-bladed rotor provides vertical thrust like a
helicopter
> rotor for takeoff and low-speed flight and is stopped and locked into
an ?X?
> position relative to the fuselage and serves as a wing for high-speed
cruise.
>
> The X-wing design, if lightweight enough, could hover as efficiently as a
> helicopter and fly as fast as a jet. The RSRA/X-Wing vehicle was a
> proof-of-concept stopped rotor aircraft configuration which used rotor
> blades primarily constructed of laminated carbon fiber. Delamination of
> the main spar during ground testing demonstrated that significant
> interlaminar stresses were produced. Analysis confirmed the presence
> of out-of-plane load components." End of quote.
>
> The heaviest part of an airplane is the wing spar. Not counting
> the engine and gear box.
>
> If you build an X rotor with thick and strong enough rotor spars to
support
> the weight of the aircraft when the rotor is stopped the weight
> of the now useless fore and aft wing becomes the cargo and adds drag.
> Furthermore the airfoil required when the X rotor is rotating is entirely
> diametrically opposed to the airfoil required when the X rotor
> is stopped.
>
> The V22 scheme is better and it is proven. Here are some pictures
> I took.
>
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>
> Wow! You respond quickly. Nice article and great meeting you and your
wife.
> Do you hard copy your articles? If so, I would like to purchase a copy.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rodger Parker
>
> No hard copy other than my book on how to cool your wankel, Roger.
> This is strictly an Internet News Letter. You can use the pictures
> I took of your airplane by saving them to a folder.
>
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Need a gas turbine?
Call to Avon Aero in Danville, Indiana. Ask for Bruce Linsmeyer, he may
be able to help.
Yogi
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.