Hi SlowRotor,
"...interest in a gyro stabilizer ... learn to hover."
True, but my point is that a good machine eases the pilot workload. Especially if he/she is preoccupied, possibly in an emergency. It also reduces the likelyhood of accidents.
"The Hiller rotormatic and the Bell stabilizer system went away."
Both systems are fundamentally flawed, the primary reason being that they affect teetering rotors not rigid/articulated rotors (less pitch/roll control). Hiller also relied on aerodynamics, which at the hub are not steady. The Bell system only increases rotor apparent inertia, and does absolutely nothing for heli control.
"It takes more than just the ability to hover to be a pilot and pilots like control more than stability."
True, but i suspect pilots doing the three Ds would be greatful for a machine that "flew itself". If it was purely mechanical, then it could be relied on to a greater extent.
"A little slower reacting rotor ..."
The Lockhheed system has absolutely no effect on rotor response time. It just provides attitude feedback, so that into cyclic controls pitch/roll rate directly (like a fixed wing) - in simple terms: the pilot flys the gyro, the gyro flies the heli. It is the basis of all articulated rotor gyro electro-hydraulic systems (and future FBW systems). It that respect it was widely adopted, but not in it's original mechanical form.
Mart
Last edited by Graviman; 16th May 2005 at 20:36.