Bugdevheli - I can see where the belt design does have major advantages regarding weight saving, and elimination of the gearboxes, driveshafts & universal joints. I would trust that the belts are aviation grade Kevlar, and not automotive grade.
Belt whip is something that probably needs to be addressed - the distances between the pulleys are quite long, and to eliminate dangerous whip, there are only two ways to do so. One way is to increase belt tension substantially - thus leading to belt stress, shorter life and increased likelihood of failure. The second way is to add idler pulleys to control whip. A third way would be to increase the number of pulleys overall, and thereby reduce the individual belt lengths.
Does this thing actually get off the ground? I haven't seen a video of it actually hovering. I don't believe that too many previous test hovers of chopper prototypes, saw them tethered. Tethering seems like it would place outside forces on the chopper that could lead to incorrect presumptions of stability. Far better to let it fly free, and gather inputs that precisely reflect true flying conditions.
My last question is - what are the plans for a proper fuel tank? - and wouldn't this thing have a very limited range? The weight penalty of a decent fuel tank would seem, to me, to be a big bugbear in the design.
Rigga - From an engineering viewpoint, square sections have vastly increased strength over round sections, when it comes to load-carrying capacity. The sharp corners of a square profile increase strength enormously over the simple round section.
P.S. I've got a thick skin, feel free to savage me all you like, if you feel my comments are too critical. I'm trying to offer constructive criticism, but different people have varying opinons, as to when constructive criticism ends, and destructive criticism starts.
I must say I agree with BoeingMEL, you cerainly look like an old and bold pilot to me. Good luck.
Last edited by onetrack; 4th Jan 2010 at 00:48.