Wow - good stuff!
Lu,
Thanks for the info - you really know your stuff on this. My understanding then is that the basic mechanical system is very reliable (Blade divergence is a potential problem on any project). Do you know much about the history of the CL475 or 186? Did the 186 progress to hydraulic or was this a Cheyenne feature?
----
Matthew,
"Once we believe that FBW is more reliable than mechanical (augmented or not) then the manufacturers will be able to offer unstable aircraft that the computer can fly."
I accept this, and even recently went for a job interview to a supplier for aerospace electrohydraulic and electromechanical systems (what's left of the auto industry has taken on e-steering in a big way). However, if there was a simple mechanical solution for light helis why overly complicate it? On large machines that require servo assistance i can see the point, but an R22?!?
BTW my car does not have power assist, and at 160'000 miles of hard driving i don't want it - more to go wrong...
----
"Why can't linear induction actuators be used in place of hydraulic ones?"
No reason at all. I even like some of the systems on offer. The point is for an R22 size machine why introduce the complexity of power assist? A gyro as part of the swash plate is simple and effective. Find me a fault with that system and i'll drop it...
"~ Rotors will be powered by electric motors."
Yes. I'm even working on a fuel cell concept that may offer that dream, but i'm first designing a diesel engine as a control and a fall back research option (got to know your stuff to get funding).
"~ The use of an electric disk-motor will eliminate the need for gears."
No. Electric motors have a maximum torque/mass figure driven by the 1 tesla flux in the mag circuit. Gears are good in that they allow the motor to spin at high RPM to maximise power/mass. Disc motors reduce mass/torque (less mag circuit iron) but would still benefit from high rpm.
"~ Dual main-rotors will have a separate motor for each rotor and the inter-phasing of these rotors will be maintained electrically by encoders."
Highly unlikely. For intermeshing/interleaving the potential modes of failure for this would be catastrophic, this would fast be rejected by any sane design team. The safest means of autorotative (which already implies one mode of failure) synchronisation is the humble gear. SBS tandem would fly with desynchronised rotors, but i can guess how Nick would feel about having to watch 2 NR guages while looking for a soft spot.
Still, solid state will come...
Mart
[edit:typos]
Last edited by Graviman; 4th Jun 2005 at 21:36.