To: helmet fire
You must be spring loaded in the pissed off position relative to anything I post and I think it is clouding your vision.
Example: Lu asks/states the R44 has a dangerously unstable rotorhead design. Delta3 kindly maths models the solution, explains it in depth, and comes up with proof that Lu's statement is unsupported. Lu reacts not by acknowledging the explaination, questioning the maths model, nor even the assumptions. Instead he replies..
First of all I never stated that the R-44 has a dangerously unstable rotor system. What I stated that if the R-44 ever entered into a situation where there were extreme flapping on both the teeter and cone hinges I postulated that the delta 3 might exacerbate the flapping by increasing the pitch on an upward flapping blade and decreasing the pitch on a downward.
This is contrary to what Delta-3 is intended for.
Secondly I don't have the engineering background to understand Delta-3s graphs and I can only assume that many of the members of this forum are in the same boat. In a private3 communication from Delta-3 he indicated that in his investigation he determined that the phase angle on the R-44 was 108-degrees. At least that is what I thought he said. I asked him to explain how he arrived at this conclusion and he explained in engineering speak which went over my head.
Please tell me I am wrong. Explaining why I am wrong with technical statements and not vitriol.
This is what I stated in my first post. Maybe I should have added in "not with complex graphs". That way we can all understand the problem.
All of my comments on this subject are based on the kinematics of the R-44 rotorhead and are based on a graph provided by Delta-3. Maybe he can include the graph and we can go from there.
