Dave,
The configuration that I proposed offers the following improvements over existing kit helicopters:
(1) Improved payload (300kg)
(2) Improved performance (speed and range)
(3) High inertia rotor system - benign HV curve and behaviour in autorotation
(4) Massively improved reliability
(5) Massively improved crashworthiness
(6) Bullet proof, de-rated, fuel-injected engine with realistic 2000hr TBO
(7) Reduced 'real-life' operating costs
(8) Dramatically improved appearance & external aerodynamics
(9) Reduced & Simplified maintenance
(10) Improved handling qualities
(11) BCAR-VLH/EASA-VLR compliant design
Such a configuration, would allow would-be R-22 self-fly hire pilots, to own and maintain (either individually or in small groups) their own helicopter. A helicopter that has been specifically designed with the low-time pilots in mind.
Just another helicopter?
I don't thinks so, but I guess i'm biased!
We can the compare the configuration to the certified market leader, the Robinson R22 Beta II:
My configuration offers:
(1) 30% More Payload (2x225lb PAX & 3hrs Fuel)
(2) 30% Higher Cruise Speed
(3) Traditional High Inertia rotor (Similar behaviour to Jet Ranger)
(4) Fuel Injection - NO CARB ICING
(5) Dramatically improved crashworthiness
(6) Improved 'less-skittish' handling qualities
(7) Approximately 40% the purchase cost of a R22
(8) Approximately 30% the operating cost of a R22
Just another helicopter?
I really don't think so.
HOWEVER, if 'Just another helicopter' means that the aircraft is financially viable to develop and market on a tiny budget in minimum time, or that it is sufficiently familiar for people to believe that they can build and fly one safely the I guess you are right - Just another helicopter it is.
There is a place for triple-D designs and large prizes for those that get them to work and indeed I have my own collection of them. However, I believe strongly that triple-D designs have no place in an under-funded kit helicopter project...least not if you what to get something to market.
Dave, your hub sounds great in principal, better than a two blades ~ except on cost. But how will you convince people to bet their lives on the fact that:
(a) It works properly
(b) They can build it
(c) It won't break
...and would you be confident enough to do so? Remember, limited budget, limited testing, limited confidence.
Surely under circumstances such as these (realistic ones) it would be better to rely on a hub design developed in the 40's and used safely ever since - even in the worlds safest single engine aircraft? Similar argument for the configuration and the engine.
CRAN
