Genghis,
As you say, the Rotax engines may be one of the better engines for very light rotorcraft, but it has a problem that goes beyond the actual engines.
The installation manual of Rotax engines state
"This engine shall not be used on rotor wing aircraft (helicopters, gyrocopters, etc.) or any similar craft"
B.J. Schramm and Rotax were not on talking terms because of Schramm's desire to use Rotax engines in his Helicycles. The CH-7 Kompress uses a Rotax 914 but the helicopter is sold without the engine. This is a detriment for any helicopter that intends to have large sales and eventually become a certified craft.
Zeeoo,
" Dave, look at the dragonfly rotor and tell me it doesn't look like something you saw.. does it seem complicated ?"
Yes, it looks familiar
. Superficially, it also appears to looks like the Scorpion and the Rotorway hubs. CRAN has asked for
" Benign reaction to low-g flight " This implies a rotor that is somewhat beyond the primitive teetering rotor.
There are numerous one and two seat helicopters out there. All could be 'tweaked' into being something slightly better. None of them will take Rotorcraft to a higher plateau.
Consider the oxymoron of 'low price and superior features". This is not a question of which comes first - the chicken or the egg? It is simply and loudly;- "build a better mousetrap and the people will come to buy"
I strongly believe that;
1) Low price will ONLY come about when the helicopter is mass-produced. (think Henry Ford)
2) Mass production will ONLY come about when a helicopter has shown superior features.
It's the rotor, it's the rotor, it's the rotor. ---> It's the hub, it's the blade, it's the configuration and its the flight-controls.
