Thanks for the constructive criticism.
heedm
>One problem I can see is the rotor disks are tilted from the horizontal (12.5 degrees in your design). <
This should not be a serious problem. As you mention, the vertical component of thrust is still a healthy 97.6%. The 'theoretical' UniCopter has rigid blades and therefore its current angle is 9-degrees, resulting in a vertical component of 98.8%
In opposition to the western perspective
~ " .... the single-rotor helicopter's tail rotor power consumption accounts for 10-12% of total power." ~ Eduard Petrosyan, Deputy Chief Designer of the Kamov Company
>you compare it to a single rotor, "head to head" .... would need a smaller rotor diameter for the intermeshing rotor<,
This is an important but difficult area to discuss since there is no rotor performance data available on the intermeshing configuration. The downwash on the fuselage is not a serious problem because the intermeshing rotor cutout is quite large. My earlier downwash chart to Nick L. makes it appear that, theoretically, the synchropter is not too bad, particularly in fast forward flight. Ivo, of Ivo Props built a simple little intermeshing helicopter years ago and although it never left ground effect, he was surprised by the small amount of power it required.
The following web page should be informative to anyone who has an interested in the coaxial helicopter, and it may be of particular interest to Nick L.
http://www.kamov.ru/news/petr11.htm
> ... it won't be any easier to fly. <
Symmetry of flight controls is a given and cross-coupling should be reduced, but your point is well take, particularly in respect to SynchroLite. It was this concern that prompted the UniCopter development. The intent here is that the rigidity of the rotors will give a faster and more precise response; which is an extension of Nick L. comments on piloting the ABC.
> The rotor governor will make things safer for engine failures in a particular envelope, but unless the pilot can instantly override it,
<
The pilot has the ability to instantly override the rotor governor. My understanding of the 'basic' difference between an engine and a rotor governor is, that with one; pilot input is required to put the craft into autorotation, whereas with the other; pilot input is required to prevent it from going into autorotation. Some additional 'dry' information is available at:
http://www.synchrolite.com/Governor.html
_______________
tgrendl
> At your target weight a ballistic recovery system (or two) should alleviate some of the concern regarding reliability, at least for test flight.<
The current method is to hang a St. Christopher medallion.
Your idea may work, as long as it is possible to 'get around' the intermeshing rotors.
> I'd think also that a rotor governor could be replaced by a Sprague clutch setup at the right place.<
A Sprague (overrunning) clutch is definitely needed, where you suggest. The rotor governor would serve somewhat different functions and would be a later add-on.
>I'm trying to imagine what your helicopter will sound like. <
Probably like a lawn blower.
> What powerplant(s) are you looking at?
Output shaft speed?
Output torque?
Final rotor rpm?<
Since you asked.
http://www.UniCopter.com/UniCopter_Reciprocating.html http://www.UniCopter.com/UniCopter_P...ccessForm.html
http://www.SynchroLite.com/Reciprocating.html http://www.SynchroLite.com/PowerTrainAccessForm.html
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]
[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]