View Full Version : Bell propulsive anti-torque system (PATS).
Just read an article on the Flight International website concerning the Bell propulsive anti-torque system (PATS).
Isn't this the same principle as the Piasecki system that is being used on a UH-60?
Would be interested to hear technical opinions on this idea. What are the pros and cons? Is this a small step towards compounding?
Can you post a link to the article please?
SASless
18th Jan 2005, 21:54
Cran....
Hit this link....
vtol.org/pdf/ucarvertfall04.pdf
If this concept doesn't scare the pants off ya...you are fearless!
Nigerian Expat Outlaw
18th Jan 2005, 22:03
Bloody Rocket Science !!
http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_frameset.asp?target=fi_issue/is_display_free.asp
Here you go CRAN
Dave_Jackson
19th Jan 2005, 00:58
"If this concept doesn't scare the pants off ya...you are fearless!"
Hey SASless, easy now. You're right, the compound helicopter is really scary, but the intermeshing helicopter is pure logic. ;)
You'll be happy to know that the project was canceled three weeks ago. :ooh:
Dave
SASless
19th Jan 2005, 01:12
Dave,
It isn't the flying part that scares me...it is the robot chopper cruising around shooting things that scares me......the Air Force does a darn good job of murdering folks with manned aircraft already. Just because a sensor and computer says its cool to dust someone....I would prefer to have a set of real eyeballs looking where he is gonna shoot before the lead starts flying. So long as the dastardly robotic killer was only allowed to roam around far beyond the MLR.....would I be even remotely comfy with it being used.
I mean really...how we gonna create heroes if all we have is micro-chips and antennas doing the killing and dying.
wishtobflying
19th Jan 2005, 01:14
http://vtol.org/pdf/ucarvertfall04.pdf
SASless, I believe the Robin Williams movie TOYS was along the lines of what we will be seeing. The actual "finger on the trigger" will be a real one, with live feedback to the operator, who may or may not be sitting in the front seat of an Apache at the time.
The biggest problem is input lag over large distances. The operator must be relatively close to the UAV unless it's following a pre-programmed flight path as in the spy plane fixed wing types around at the moment. If you're planning on getting down amongst the terrain in a UAV, you better have some quick response times otherwise they'll be flying into things left right and centre while waiting for some boffin to input new destination coordinates.
Lu Zuckerman
19th Jan 2005, 03:24
Mr. Maurice Ramme of Seattle, Washington developed the concept of ducted thrust control/propulsive thrust back in 1987. The proof of concept was developed and flew several years earlier.
Google Monte Copter
I had the honor of working with Mr. Ramme on the final version. It never came to pass due to the lack of financing. He also developed a rotorblade that would not stall. He tried to market the blade concept to all of the major manufacturers including the US Air Force. They refused saying NIH (Not Invented Here). This same rotorblade could be assembled in about fifteen minutes and be ready to fly in an hour.
:E :E
Vfrpilotpb
19th Jan 2005, 06:58
Good Morning Lu,
"A rotor blade that wouldn't stall" can we see more details on that some where, or is it hidden away for some reason!
Peter R-B
What about the Piasecki Pathfinder? That was pre 1987.
mfriskel
19th Jan 2005, 12:38
Lu,
Since that machine had cold -cycle tip jets, would it be anti-torque or anti friction?