The Helicopter Pilot's Conundrum?

[Dave_Jackson]

Piloting a helicopter is a profession that has as much or more complexity than that of piloting a fixed-wing craft. In addition, it appears to be a more exciting profession. The helicopter pilot has a pride and satisfaction in his ability to master a relatively complex and demanding task.

However, the helicopter pilot seeks improvements to the helicopter. He wants; greater reliability, stability augmentation, and performance monitoring, to name a few. Moreover, he is particularly concerned about safety. He wants a lower risk factor.

Is there not a conflict here? If 'a cheap helicopter' is the helicopter's oxymoron, then are not the preceding two paragraphs the helicopter pilot's conundrum?

[Flingwing207]

I suspect the helicopter pilot's environment will remain challenging, no matter how the machine evolves. As the machine gets more capable, the missions grow more demanding. It is analogous to the situation faced by a military fighter pilot - the machine has evolved to the point that the person inside is the limiting factor for the mission. Helicopter flying is still a long way from that point, but we will see more and more management tasks in the helicopter done by technology instead of pilots.

On the cost side, I pirate (and subvert) a phrase from Chris King, manufacturer of high-end bicycle parts:
"Capable, Reliable, Inexpensive - pick any two"

[Gomer Pylot]

Just because the helicopter is more difficult to fly doesn't mean I prefer that. I fly helicopters because that's what Uncle Sam taught me to fly. If he had let me fly fixed-wing, then I would be making lots more money, staying in much better locations, and have had a much better home life. I'll take anything I can get that will make flying easier, and especially safer. My primary goal every week is to get home to my family in one piece, alive and well.

[slowrotor]

The difficulty in flying a helicopter(and cost) has limited its use to military and commercial aplication for the most part.
A full time pro can maintain the high level of skill in order to survive.
For the private or sport pilot I am not convinced the present design state is even close to acceptable. At least for the person of average ability.
I can ride a unicycle for maybe a minute or so, close to injury the entire time.
I much prefer the two wheeler when I need to go somewhere.
For private use to be practical... the cost and complexity must equal fixed wing in my opinion.

slowrotor

[Simon853]

Maybe this is due to naivete on my part, but there seems to be a lot of technologies in the r/c heli world that could lend itself to full-size in order to simplify the piloting. For example: tail rotor gyros and computerised torque compensation mixing. Yet it seems the control technologies in todays smaller GA helicopters remains the same as it did 40 years ago. Why is this?

Si

[Hilico]

Because no-one wants to be the one to pay for the certification.

[CyclicRick]

I'm not so sure Gyro-stabalized tail rotors would be very popular, no feel, less control over input etc. I think helicopter flying is still, and will be for a very long time, a hands on skill. Any kind of SAS system is ok for IFR or corporate flying and winching, but not really much use during logging/dusting/spraying and filming ops.

Rick

[Flingwing207]

I was doing rides at a large R/C helo "fly in" (the Rotary Ringout in Owatanna, MN), and the first question from almost everyone who came on a ride was "does this have gyros?"

They were fairly impressed when I said no. They were also pretty bummed that I had removed the dual controls...

[NickLappos]

Cyclic Rick (and Dave) -
The idea that Dave is hawking peeks out of his question, let me paraphrase it as "Isn't it about time we made the rotor system so stable that helos become easy to fly?"

My answer - Nope. The idea that we have to arrange the blades and gears and stuff to sacrifice utility but to create stability is not only wrong, it is also unnecessary. In turn:

It is wrong - "stability" for a helicopter should not mean making it easy to hold attitude, not any more. Stability can now mean much, much more - that the helicopter holds position, and assumes a velocity commanded by the pilot, a very great improvement from the short-sighted dream that the bank angle and pitch attitude would be held constant for us.

It is unnecessary to bend metal to make stability- for the complexity of a small radio, or a cell phone, we can have the computation power to make the Enstrom fly like a space shuttle. There is no need to bend metal in a neolithic effort to make the helo "fly right," we can use some electronics and some small servos to solve the problem. If we make some common modules that adapt with PROM-burnable software to any helicopter (a job at least ten universities are working as we speak) it should be very easy to make an autopilot that costs about the same as an ELT, but allows the machine to have the stability that Dave dreams about.

Cyclic Rick, please don't equate stability with poor, unpleasant loss of feel. The old fashioned damping that you have seen, where the whole helo is made to respond like it was padded in foam rubber, is a thing of the past. New command models in stability systems can take your stick input into account, and allow you to fly through the autopilot so you are directly connected to the machine. That way you feel the crisp response of the rotor, but the autopilot (which does not fight your request) is stll able to damp the machine when a gust hits it. In short, stability no longer has to mean loss of feel.

It is funny how we fail to see the extremely complex computer system that connects our keyboards across the globe, a computer power that can be harnessed to make small helos feel just great, without screwing up their rotor systems. Instead some of us hunger for "tin stability" as the answer.

[boomerangben]

I find it interesting that despite the major advances in technology over the last 40 or so years, the venerable old S61 is still the aircraft of choice for Search and Rescue in Europe. The latest machines seem only a modest improvement in capability (real not paper) but come with a big fuel burn penalty. On top of that those that have flown these latest types maintain that for hovering over the stern of a fishing boat at sea or flying in the mountains in poor viz, the S61 still excels. Yes we now have double/triple/quadruple(?) redundancy, but I would rather have an aircraft that didn't go wrong in the first place.

I am sure that in time the mark 2s, 3s 4s etc of the latest aircraft will lead to an improvement in the situation, but I can't help wondering what a S61 would be like if it had the benefits of modern technology.

[Bravo73]

but I can't help wondering what a S61 would be like if it had the benefits of modern technology.


Er, the S92...?




:cool:

[slowrotor]

nick,
Electronic stability sounds great, especially if the cost can be compared to an ELT as you suggest.
But it will still be a little scary to me. My R/C helo worked pretty well till the yaw gyro failed then it was uncontrollable. Got a new one and it failed as well.
I dont care for electronics that much, I see the utility, but I also hate fussing with parts that cannot be fixed by me. I like the ignition points on my old truck.
The helo should still be controllable with failed computer.
The V-22 that crashed with out of control computers, how can that be avoided?

slowrotor

[Dave_Jackson]

Honestly Nick, Nothing was being hawked.

It was just some musing about conflicting desires. This can apply to vocations and to extreme sports. How can a person have the adrenaline rush of risk, while at the same time having the comfort of security?

Helicopter pilots like the challenges, and yet they want the safety. I was just curious how helicopter pilot's reconciled these two opposing desires.

_______________

Ok. Now the gloves come off. http://www.unicopter.com/7up.gif It's also off topic, but what the heck.

The Holy Grail is not the sacrificing of control for stability, or visa-versa. The Holy Grail is to make the rotorcraft much more efficient within its environment. This is an aerodynamic problem not an electrical one; unless ionizing the air around the craft helps.

The rotorcraft's lift/drag ratio is pitiful when compared to that of the airplane. The given reason is the widely divergent aerodynamic situations that are encountered by the blades at different radii and azimuths. IMNSHO, these are excuses. In addition, they must be solved aerodynamically.

Isn't it time to consider;
~ The 10 to 20% loss due to the tail rotor ~ Prouty.
~ The ability to provide Active Blade Twist AND at rates exceeding 1P.
~ Diminishing the discrepancy between root and tip by slowing the rotor.
~ Off-load some of the propulsive force onto propellers.

Then, and only then, can the pilot pick up his pre-programmed disk, walk out to the aircraft, punch it into the onboard computer and go to sleep.
http://www.unicopter.com/Sleep.gif

[Warren Buffett]

"Isn't it about time we made the rotor system so stable that helos become easy to fly?"

My answer - Nope. The idea that we have to arrange the blades and gears and stuff to sacrifice utility but to create stability is not only wrong, it is also unnecessary.

Mr Lappos, are you saying that the design of the rotor system in general, as it stands, is at its optimum ie utility has to be sacrificed if any more progress is attempted?

Your comment about an autopilot of the future being as cheap as an ELT ... Do you mean cheap for say, Sikorsky or Eurocopter to make or do you mean what an S-76/Super Puma customer would pay for a replacement new model?

What do you mean by your statement about making the Enstrom fly like a space shuttle?

Many Thanks,
WB