I liked this practical configuration so much I added it to my web site:
http://www.rotaryeng.net/STOL.html
Thanks to all the people that uploaded ideas and suggestions.
Especially Roger Parker for displaying his STOL airplane at the
Camarillo
air show and inspiring me.
Honda is getting into personal jets. Mazda could build something
like this almost anybody could afford. People have dreamed
about an airplane that can take off in their back yard and fly
for a 1000 miles for the last 100 years. The Mazda rotary engine and
carbon fiber could make that dream come true.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Paul,
You need to talk to this guy:
http://www.amvaircraft.com/html/new_developments.html . Atilla
(that's his
real name) was using a turbocharged 13B engine in his prototype and he
was
hovering when he burned it up. He's now thinking about installing an
Allison 250 (Rolls Royce) turboshaft. I was looking at those aluminum
housings from Racing Beat today and I'm thinking a turbocharged 20B
with the
aluminum details might be the ticket for this aircraft.
By the way, forget about that rotating cockpit. I work at the company
that
built the more successful of those two "pogo" type prototypes. If you
really want to do that, make the airplane(?) a pusher, do vertical
with the
pilot standing up (Hiller did this) and have the pilot prone horizontal
flight (this was successfully done by both Northrop and the Horton
Brothers
as well as the Wright Brothers). You could also have the engine
behind your
feet and use a shaft to drive rotors in the nose but you would have to be
careful about forward visibility. Someone is now building a UAV in
the same
configuration as the Lockheed XFV-1 but they are using a computer for
landing that didn't exist in the 50's. Check this out:
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/gravity/xfv1.php . In any case, a
design like
this isn't too unreasonable especially since ballistic parachutes like
the
one in the Cirrus are readily available.
Steve Brazil
Thanks for the suggestion Steve. A prone pilot sounds like a great idea
if he could look straight down as well as up. TV view I am not so sure
about. How do you land if you have total electrical failure?
A pusher would require a duct I suspect which is very inefficient
in high speed forward flight. Also the canard is much more stable
on the ground than a conventional airplane like the XFV1 in windy
conditions.
Also I use helicopter like cyclical pitch controls to
get around the XFV1 hover control problems. A helicopter
will auto rotate to a safe landing in the event of an engine failure
or running out of fuel for that matter.
Here are some pictures I took of the Amvair aircraft at OSH
in 2003. It never flew as far as I know.
The request for investment always raises a red flag in my mind.
As far as I can tell from looking at it the hover controls
are inadequate. The engineer was also naive about tuning a
13B turbo rotary engine allowing it to detonate and destroy itself.
Not a confidence inspiring event. Small turbo prop engines are
too expensive and fuel hungry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the Convair version. It too had hover control problems.
Using helicopter cyclical pitch control removes 90% of the
technical risk. Many coaxial counter rotating blade helicopters
have flown and flown well.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Web sites for history back ground.
http://www.vstol.org/wheel/wheel.htm
http://www.kulikovair.com/Coaxial.htm
http://aviation-history.com/garber/vg-bldg/hiller_copter-1_f.html
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/coaxial_benefits.htm
http://www.kamov.ru/market/news/petr11.htm
http://www.kamov.ru/market/encycl/coahe.htm
http://www.yoshine.com/home.php
EzyCopter employs a Coaxial Drive System (CDS) coupled with
twin rotary engines and linked with innovative collective and cyclic
controls.
With the benefits of simpler design, lighter weight, more balanced and
torque-free
hovering capability, safety features of EzyCopter will exceed all
expectations.
While compact in size, the EzyCopter is the only recreational coaxial
helicopter
equipped with twin rotary engines, twin articulated rotors, four rotor
blades,
and correlated cyclic and collective controls, making EzyCopter easier
and safer
to fly!
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/hiller_xh44.htm
http://www.helis.com/Since80s/h_ka50.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_rotors
"A principal disadvantage of the coaxial rotor design is the increased
mechanical
complexity of the rotor hub - linkages and swashplates for two rotor
discs need
to be assembled around the rotor shaft, which itself is more complex
because of
the need to drive two rotor discs in opposite directions. In an
elementary
engineering sense, the coaxial rotor system is more prone to failure
because
of the greater number of moving parts and complexity, though the
engineering
tolerances in aerospace are usually sufficiently precise to mitigate
this somewhat."
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
The AMV-211 says they are getting 450 SHP from a 13B ? Wow !! No
surprise they detonated and (???) broke apex seals ?
-dave
It can be done they just don't know how to do it.
Requires a very large intercooler and a large cooling fan for vertical
takeoff and/or ADI. The intake charge MUST be lower than 140 F.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.