The CarterCopter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hartford, Connecticut, USA
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CarterCopter
The Cartercopter looks like a really great idea and design. I'd just like to know maybe some opinions of those with more knowledge than myself. You know things they don't want to advertise on the site, that sorta stuff.
It seems to solve some problems that the V-22 is having, gyro-planes cant get settling with pwr, and it obviosly has good autorotaional proformance. Too good to be true?
http://www.cartercopters.com/
It seems to solve some problems that the V-22 is having, gyro-planes cant get settling with pwr, and it obviosly has good autorotaional proformance. Too good to be true?
http://www.cartercopters.com/
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be doing very well since;
"The pressurized gyroplane is capable of ... true airspeeds up to 400 mph at 45,000 feet."
From October 201 ~ Rotor & Wing
http://www.defensedaily.com/reports/.../1001civup.htm
See: Aircraft Designer Seeks to Break Mu-1 Barrier
"The pressurized gyroplane is capable of ... true airspeeds up to 400 mph at 45,000 feet."
From October 201 ~ Rotor & Wing
http://www.defensedaily.com/reports/.../1001civup.htm
See: Aircraft Designer Seeks to Break Mu-1 Barrier
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And their target is 500 mph TAS.
I don't know what Lu's going to say about this!!
This is fantastic news!
Much as I'm a total Concorde fan (not that I've ever flown on it - still saving!) this will be even quicker 'door-to-door' for the rich jetsetters who don't live near LHR or JFK.
I don't know what Lu's going to say about this!!
Aircraft Designer Seeks to Break Mu-1 Barrier
For years, rotorcraft designers have looked for a way to break the so-called "mu-1 barrier," the point beyond which an aircraft’s forward speed exceeds the rotor tip speed. In the past, attempts to break the barrier have resulted in rotor instability at rotor RPM ratios approaching mu-1.
Jay Carter, Jr., president of CarterCopters, LLC, says he’s designed an advanced-technology gyroplane that not only can break that barrier, but has achieved a "mu" value of eight in a 1/6 scale model.
The CarterCopter gyroplane uses a two-blade teetering rotor system with a twistable I-beam spar that runs from tip to tip. To keep the rotor blades rigid and stable at slow tip speeds, 65 pounds of depleted uranium are installed in each tip. The total weight of the rotor system is just 275 pounds.
"Those 130 pounds [in the tips] give us so much energy in our rotor blades that literally on the stored energy of the rotor blades in overspeed mode, we can jump 50 feet in the air and accelerate to 50 mph before the rotor system has slowed to its normal operating RPM," Carter says.
The pressurized gyroplane is capable of brief hovers and true airspeeds up to 400 mph at 45,000 feet. A turbine-powered version may reach airspeeds up to 500 mph. CarterCopters LLC has received a Phase III grant from NASA’s Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program.
For years, rotorcraft designers have looked for a way to break the so-called "mu-1 barrier," the point beyond which an aircraft’s forward speed exceeds the rotor tip speed. In the past, attempts to break the barrier have resulted in rotor instability at rotor RPM ratios approaching mu-1.
Jay Carter, Jr., president of CarterCopters, LLC, says he’s designed an advanced-technology gyroplane that not only can break that barrier, but has achieved a "mu" value of eight in a 1/6 scale model.
The CarterCopter gyroplane uses a two-blade teetering rotor system with a twistable I-beam spar that runs from tip to tip. To keep the rotor blades rigid and stable at slow tip speeds, 65 pounds of depleted uranium are installed in each tip. The total weight of the rotor system is just 275 pounds.
"Those 130 pounds [in the tips] give us so much energy in our rotor blades that literally on the stored energy of the rotor blades in overspeed mode, we can jump 50 feet in the air and accelerate to 50 mph before the rotor system has slowed to its normal operating RPM," Carter says.
The pressurized gyroplane is capable of brief hovers and true airspeeds up to 400 mph at 45,000 feet. A turbine-powered version may reach airspeeds up to 500 mph. CarterCopters LLC has received a Phase III grant from NASA’s Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program.
Much as I'm a total Concorde fan (not that I've ever flown on it - still saving!) this will be even quicker 'door-to-door' for the rich jetsetters who don't live near LHR or JFK.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To: Heliport
The best made plans of mice and men…
Sure I have a few questions and maybe several comments.
First I would like to say I wish them much success and I see this as a normal evolution in rotary wing design.
Question 1) Is the total weight of the craft when at speed supported by the wings?
Question 2) Do they utilize flight control surfaces for control or, do they use cyclic input to control the rotor?
Question 3) Is the rotor at flat pitch when at speed. By this I mean is it aligned with the relative wind?
Comment : Relative to questions 1) 2) and 3). This aircraft is an autogyro
and could be considered a compound autogyro as it has wings and other lifting and stabilizing surfaces. One of the problems with an aircraft of this type is that if the wings are the primary lifting surfaces at speed the rotor must be aligned with the relative wind. Otherwise, the rotor would provide lift and the aircraft would be constantly rising. If for any reason the pilot or some other external force decreases the pitch on the advancing blade it could go negative and the disc would drop down at some point which would either cause fuselage contact or, loss of control.
If the aircraft uses conventional controls at speed any deviation from the flight path could cause a perturbation of the rotor mass and gyroscopic precession could change the disc path resulting in the condition outlined above. The V-22 has this problem when the PropRotors are in the Aircraft mode.
Now before anyone says I’m crazy I would suggest you check out the websites on Autogyro's and Gyroplanes as they say basically the same thing.
Based on my comment above, I would be willing to state that this condition of flat pitch and alignment with the relative wind is what did in the Cheyenne helicopter as it was maintained at flat pitch and the wings were used for lift. When the pilot input cyclic control he would never know which way the disc would tilt and how much it would tilt. This resulted in fuselage incursion on two Cheyenne’s.
These are my thoughts and if the questions are answered in a way that does not support my comment then that’s OK too. Perhaps Nick Lappos would like to comment.
The best made plans of mice and men…
Sure I have a few questions and maybe several comments.
First I would like to say I wish them much success and I see this as a normal evolution in rotary wing design.
Question 1) Is the total weight of the craft when at speed supported by the wings?
Question 2) Do they utilize flight control surfaces for control or, do they use cyclic input to control the rotor?
Question 3) Is the rotor at flat pitch when at speed. By this I mean is it aligned with the relative wind?
Comment : Relative to questions 1) 2) and 3). This aircraft is an autogyro
and could be considered a compound autogyro as it has wings and other lifting and stabilizing surfaces. One of the problems with an aircraft of this type is that if the wings are the primary lifting surfaces at speed the rotor must be aligned with the relative wind. Otherwise, the rotor would provide lift and the aircraft would be constantly rising. If for any reason the pilot or some other external force decreases the pitch on the advancing blade it could go negative and the disc would drop down at some point which would either cause fuselage contact or, loss of control.
If the aircraft uses conventional controls at speed any deviation from the flight path could cause a perturbation of the rotor mass and gyroscopic precession could change the disc path resulting in the condition outlined above. The V-22 has this problem when the PropRotors are in the Aircraft mode.
Now before anyone says I’m crazy I would suggest you check out the websites on Autogyro's and Gyroplanes as they say basically the same thing.
Based on my comment above, I would be willing to state that this condition of flat pitch and alignment with the relative wind is what did in the Cheyenne helicopter as it was maintained at flat pitch and the wings were used for lift. When the pilot input cyclic control he would never know which way the disc would tilt and how much it would tilt. This resulted in fuselage incursion on two Cheyenne’s.
These are my thoughts and if the questions are answered in a way that does not support my comment then that’s OK too. Perhaps Nick Lappos would like to comment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hartford, Connecticut, USA
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a link to an description of the cartercopters controls. http://www.cartercopters.com/flight_controls.html
It says that it is projected that the wing will be providing total lift past 150kt and that controls are mixed between conventional/helicopter. as I understand it. much of this is way over my head.
If you wan't to take a look at some of the problems they have already had check this link http://www.cartercopters.com/pressrel.html it has all the press releases.
It says that it is projected that the wing will be providing total lift past 150kt and that controls are mixed between conventional/helicopter. as I understand it. much of this is way over my head.
If you wan't to take a look at some of the problems they have already had check this link http://www.cartercopters.com/pressrel.html it has all the press releases.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: states
Age: 68
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are the things I have noticed on the Carter Copters site during the development of the aircraft....
They use a corvette engine...
They don't want to develop the aircraft for certification...just want to develop the technology for someone else to certificate...(that's the hard part...)
They have not gone as fast as a 500D yet....
Something happens regularly during tests that halt progress...
Seems these folks have found a way to get a NASA grant, and are trying to get as much from the government before someone figures out these guy's don't have a clue...
Just my opinion...I could be wrong....
They use a corvette engine...
They don't want to develop the aircraft for certification...just want to develop the technology for someone else to certificate...(that's the hard part...)
They have not gone as fast as a 500D yet....
Something happens regularly during tests that halt progress...
Seems these folks have found a way to get a NASA grant, and are trying to get as much from the government before someone figures out these guy's don't have a clue...
Just my opinion...I could be wrong....
(1) 500 mph TAS at FL450 = 192 kn CAS. The ceiling is more impressive than the speed (if either is achieved).
(2) There is no FAA or JAA code for certification of public transport gyroplanes.
(3) If you take all the load on the wings, the unloaded rotor will probably flap and flutter itself off, especially at high speed. If that doesn't happen, it'll slow down, leaving the problem of spinning it up again at 150kn+. Ever heard of slender wing torsional divergence?
(4) If the Corvette engine is anything like any other American automotive Engineering, the power to weight isn't going to be all that impressive. Why on earth not use a tried and tested (if uncertified) lightweight aircraft engine such as a Rotax 914 ?
(5) It's very hard to co-ordinate a controllable elevator with a controllable rotor. I've never seen a successful gyro with anything more complex than a TRIMMABLE tailplane.
I love the concept, but can't help feeling that the practice leaves a little to be desired.
G
(2) There is no FAA or JAA code for certification of public transport gyroplanes.
(3) If you take all the load on the wings, the unloaded rotor will probably flap and flutter itself off, especially at high speed. If that doesn't happen, it'll slow down, leaving the problem of spinning it up again at 150kn+. Ever heard of slender wing torsional divergence?
(4) If the Corvette engine is anything like any other American automotive Engineering, the power to weight isn't going to be all that impressive. Why on earth not use a tried and tested (if uncertified) lightweight aircraft engine such as a Rotax 914 ?
(5) It's very hard to co-ordinate a controllable elevator with a controllable rotor. I've never seen a successful gyro with anything more complex than a TRIMMABLE tailplane.
I love the concept, but can't help feeling that the practice leaves a little to be desired.
G
I tend to agree with you Genghis. Far from being the vanguard of some new technological advance, these projects are limited in their practical application and the feasibility of transition to practical/commercial certifiable application.
I am not knocking the concepts, nor the commitment of the individuals and projects involved; simply the reality of taking these projects into the commercial marketplace is not based upon the way the real world works.
Genghis raises the most significant reality facing these machines - regulation and certification! There is inadequate interest and support for the mechanism to initiate and institute regulatory action in this arena - it simply ain't gonna happen!
This is not simply my personal belief, but has been proven directly by Groen Brothers and their quiet, but total, abandonment of the commercial programme in the last couple of weeks. They are "refocusing" on military and public use applications where uncertified products can be used. (In other words the end of the road to all practical intents and purposes). http://www.groenbros.com/
I was extremely sceptical of the entire Groen Brothers programme, until I viewed a video they sent me. I think they actually have a good product, with some good performance characteristics, which would place them well in competition against helicopters in certain applications. However, much of what they claim, is dubious, as it is clearly not as versatile as a helicopter in many tasks.
The CarterCopter does appear with some consistency within the NTSB pages and in the FAA accident pages last week after;
If you take the time to read the Business plan in the CarterCopter website, the entire premise is seriously flawed by the failure to adequately address the issue, expense and practicality of certification.
These may be interesting concepts, but they are a world away from the cost and complexity of certification for commercial applications. In fact, I would go one further and state that in their current form, neither concept will ever be certified or have a practical commercial application.
Of course, I've been wrong before!
I am not knocking the concepts, nor the commitment of the individuals and projects involved; simply the reality of taking these projects into the commercial marketplace is not based upon the way the real world works.
Genghis raises the most significant reality facing these machines - regulation and certification! There is inadequate interest and support for the mechanism to initiate and institute regulatory action in this arena - it simply ain't gonna happen!
This is not simply my personal belief, but has been proven directly by Groen Brothers and their quiet, but total, abandonment of the commercial programme in the last couple of weeks. They are "refocusing" on military and public use applications where uncertified products can be used. (In other words the end of the road to all practical intents and purposes). http://www.groenbros.com/
I was extremely sceptical of the entire Groen Brothers programme, until I viewed a video they sent me. I think they actually have a good product, with some good performance characteristics, which would place them well in competition against helicopters in certain applications. However, much of what they claim, is dubious, as it is clearly not as versatile as a helicopter in many tasks.
The CarterCopter does appear with some consistency within the NTSB pages and in the FAA accident pages last week after;
EXPERIMENTAL ROTORCRAFT WAS INVOLVED IN A HIGH-SPEED TAXI WHEN IT CAME TO A STOP, AND THE ROTOR SLOWED DOWN AND STRUCK THE TOP OF THE RUDDER, OLNEY, TX.
These may be interesting concepts, but they are a world away from the cost and complexity of certification for commercial applications. In fact, I would go one further and state that in their current form, neither concept will ever be certified or have a practical commercial application.
Of course, I've been wrong before!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CarterCopter development is going to get very interesting when it attempts to break the mu = 1 barrier. [Tip Speed Ratio (mu) = forward speed / rotor's tip speed]. At tip speed ratios greater than 1 the complete span of the retreating blade will be in reverse air flow. In Carter's words "..the air flow over the entire retreating blade passes first over the trailing edge to the leading edge rather than the from the leading edge to the trailing edge."
To my knowledge, no helicopter has even achieved mu = 0.8. This includes the Sikorsky XH-59A ABC, which partially unloaded the retreating blade to prevent tip stall. Nick Lappos would be the best person to comment on this subject.
CarterCopter's patent 6,024,325 is for an airfoil profile that is halfway between a NACA 0015 profile and a shallow ellipse. This has probably been done to improve blade stability during reverse airflow. Probably as an attempt to keep the chord-wise center of lift fairly close to the center of mass and the center of feathering rotation.
A number of interesting concerns jump to mind.
~ Is it going to be possible to put enough kinetic energy into the rotor to give a jump takeoff at gross weight; considering that the semi-elliptical blade has a much higher drag/lift ratio then a conventional airfoil?
~ As Lu has mentioned, will the high inertia rotor turn fast enough to retain stability, while not rotating so fast that the gyroscopic rigidity will be detrimental to maneuvering?
~ Most interesting, will be the rotor's ability to maintain rotation by aerodynamic means at high forward speeds. They state "... the lift on the retreating blade increases as the blade drops, and works whether the air flows from leading edge to trailing edge or from the trailing edge to the leading edge, allows the rotor to operate at a mu greater than 1. The flapping automatically increases until the vertical velocity component changes the angle of attack on both the advancing and retreating blades until they both have the same lift."
At mu greater than 1, both blades must be aerodynamically acting as advancing blades.
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]
To my knowledge, no helicopter has even achieved mu = 0.8. This includes the Sikorsky XH-59A ABC, which partially unloaded the retreating blade to prevent tip stall. Nick Lappos would be the best person to comment on this subject.
CarterCopter's patent 6,024,325 is for an airfoil profile that is halfway between a NACA 0015 profile and a shallow ellipse. This has probably been done to improve blade stability during reverse airflow. Probably as an attempt to keep the chord-wise center of lift fairly close to the center of mass and the center of feathering rotation.
A number of interesting concerns jump to mind.
~ Is it going to be possible to put enough kinetic energy into the rotor to give a jump takeoff at gross weight; considering that the semi-elliptical blade has a much higher drag/lift ratio then a conventional airfoil?
~ As Lu has mentioned, will the high inertia rotor turn fast enough to retain stability, while not rotating so fast that the gyroscopic rigidity will be detrimental to maneuvering?
~ Most interesting, will be the rotor's ability to maintain rotation by aerodynamic means at high forward speeds. They state "... the lift on the retreating blade increases as the blade drops, and works whether the air flows from leading edge to trailing edge or from the trailing edge to the leading edge, allows the rotor to operate at a mu greater than 1. The flapping automatically increases until the vertical velocity component changes the angle of attack on both the advancing and retreating blades until they both have the same lift."
At mu greater than 1, both blades must be aerodynamically acting as advancing blades.
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let me put my 2c in on Cartercopter:
The concept is cool, the team is fired up and making things work, but there is a long long way to go. The speed/power/mach barrier is a tough one, indeed. The ABC has been in autogyro mode to about 300 knots at moderate altitude, and I think about 250 knots at 25000 feet, so the Cartercopter certainly plans to expand the rotory wing experience envelope.
The team will work these things out, but not easily, as rotors do not like going above mach 1 because the change in blade pitching moment for the advancing blade makes the tips go wild on the upwind portion, then they get into full stall on the downwind portion until they accelerate to the reverse flow condition. The massive lift imbalance will challenge the rotor-cyclic and aileron controls, as well as the structure and the vibration environment. For an autogyro, the cycling between stall and Mach 1 can occur about 3 times a second, so the blades take an awful pounding, the vibrations are very high, the lift they produce is minimal (thus the wings), and the drag they produce is quite high.
The real promise should not be stated as a speed at an altitude, it should be stated as a full mission capability for a price. For example, "with an XXX engine, and a price of yyy to purchase, the Cartercopter can take 4 170 lb people from a field length of zzz feet at sea level, standard temp, climb to ppp feet, cruise at qqq knots using rrr gallons of fuel per hour, and travel sss nautical miles with ttt minutes of reserve fuel. It will be certified as a normal category gyroplane for both IFR and VFR flight." Now that is a promise we can sink our teeth into.
Anyone can make the Holland Tunnel go 400 knots at 45,000 feet, given enough explosives.
None of the above is intended to dampen the wonderful ardor of the Cartercopter team, they have a beautiful aircraft, and a great idea. I have worked on several aircraft from ink-on-paper to certification, and it is a heady thing. I would envy the Cartercopter folks, were I not up to my gills in the S-92!!
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Nick Lappos ]
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Nick Lappos ]
The concept is cool, the team is fired up and making things work, but there is a long long way to go. The speed/power/mach barrier is a tough one, indeed. The ABC has been in autogyro mode to about 300 knots at moderate altitude, and I think about 250 knots at 25000 feet, so the Cartercopter certainly plans to expand the rotory wing experience envelope.
The team will work these things out, but not easily, as rotors do not like going above mach 1 because the change in blade pitching moment for the advancing blade makes the tips go wild on the upwind portion, then they get into full stall on the downwind portion until they accelerate to the reverse flow condition. The massive lift imbalance will challenge the rotor-cyclic and aileron controls, as well as the structure and the vibration environment. For an autogyro, the cycling between stall and Mach 1 can occur about 3 times a second, so the blades take an awful pounding, the vibrations are very high, the lift they produce is minimal (thus the wings), and the drag they produce is quite high.
The real promise should not be stated as a speed at an altitude, it should be stated as a full mission capability for a price. For example, "with an XXX engine, and a price of yyy to purchase, the Cartercopter can take 4 170 lb people from a field length of zzz feet at sea level, standard temp, climb to ppp feet, cruise at qqq knots using rrr gallons of fuel per hour, and travel sss nautical miles with ttt minutes of reserve fuel. It will be certified as a normal category gyroplane for both IFR and VFR flight." Now that is a promise we can sink our teeth into.
Anyone can make the Holland Tunnel go 400 knots at 45,000 feet, given enough explosives.
None of the above is intended to dampen the wonderful ardor of the Cartercopter team, they have a beautiful aircraft, and a great idea. I have worked on several aircraft from ink-on-paper to certification, and it is a heady thing. I would envy the Cartercopter folks, were I not up to my gills in the S-92!!
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Nick Lappos ]
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Nick Lappos ]
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: states
Age: 68
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are rules for the certification of gyroplanes in the States....FAR 27 and 29.
The FAA defines rotorcraft in FAR Part 1.1 as:
Rotorcraft means a heavier-than-air aircraft that depends principally for its support in flight on the lift generated by one or more rotors.
FAR 27 applicability is:
§ 27.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for normal category rotorcraft with maximum weights of 7,000 pounds or less and nine or less passenger seats.
FAR 29 applicability is:
§ 29.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for transport category rotorcraft.
(e) Rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 20,000 pounds or less but with 10 or more passenger seats may be type certificated as Category B rotorcraft provided the Category A requirements of §§ 29.67(a)(2), 29.87, 29.1517, and subparts C, D, E, and F of this part are met.
The FAA defines rotorcraft in FAR Part 1.1 as:
Rotorcraft means a heavier-than-air aircraft that depends principally for its support in flight on the lift generated by one or more rotors.
FAR 27 applicability is:
§ 27.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for normal category rotorcraft with maximum weights of 7,000 pounds or less and nine or less passenger seats.
FAR 29 applicability is:
§ 29.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for transport category rotorcraft.
(e) Rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 20,000 pounds or less but with 10 or more passenger seats may be type certificated as Category B rotorcraft provided the Category A requirements of §§ 29.67(a)(2), 29.87, 29.1517, and subparts C, D, E, and F of this part are met.
Rotormatic, you miss my point - which to be fair I didn't explain in depth.
FAR-27 and 31 has an applicability paragraph which technically includes gyros. However, the technical content of the standards is purely written around Helicopters. I have heard UK CAA officials say that they won't accept FAR-31 certification of the V-22 for the same reason, this beast is not a helicopter and a dedicated standard is needed.
Incidentally we're no better off in Europe; the JAA is currently hawking JAR-VLR (Very Light Rotorcraft) about the bazaars, yet if you read the draft it says it includes gyros, but in the text permits only a skid undercarriage. There is no gyro theory within the text, it's all entirely written around helos.
The world needs a CofA gyroplane standard to allow projects like the Cartercopter to succeed. (And something for the tilt-rotors too). The only standards is existence (such as BCAR Section T) are for small sports aircraft. FAA and JAA need to get together, probably start with the work done in the 60s to certify the Fairy Rotodyne and work out from there. But FAR-31 is not a standard that can sensibly be used.
G
FAR-27 and 31 has an applicability paragraph which technically includes gyros. However, the technical content of the standards is purely written around Helicopters. I have heard UK CAA officials say that they won't accept FAR-31 certification of the V-22 for the same reason, this beast is not a helicopter and a dedicated standard is needed.
Incidentally we're no better off in Europe; the JAA is currently hawking JAR-VLR (Very Light Rotorcraft) about the bazaars, yet if you read the draft it says it includes gyros, but in the text permits only a skid undercarriage. There is no gyro theory within the text, it's all entirely written around helos.
The world needs a CofA gyroplane standard to allow projects like the Cartercopter to succeed. (And something for the tilt-rotors too). The only standards is existence (such as BCAR Section T) are for small sports aircraft. FAA and JAA need to get together, probably start with the work done in the 60s to certify the Fairy Rotodyne and work out from there. But FAR-31 is not a standard that can sensibly be used.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding regulations for approval of unusual aircraft, the FAA is chartered to test and approve, and will derive appropriate requirements should an unusual aircraft be proposed that does not fit into an existing catagory.
The Fly By Wire Boeing 777 does not meet the "normal" FAA standards for handling, so the FAA and Boeing agreed to a set of "special conditions" that defined the maneuvers and measurements that assured safe and effective controls.
I don't believe lack of specific standards is much of an impediment, as long as the applicant (that's the manufacturer) has nailed down the special conditions prior to betting the future of the company on the certification.
The Fly By Wire Boeing 777 does not meet the "normal" FAA standards for handling, so the FAA and Boeing agreed to a set of "special conditions" that defined the maneuvers and measurements that assured safe and effective controls.
I don't believe lack of specific standards is much of an impediment, as long as the applicant (that's the manufacturer) has nailed down the special conditions prior to betting the future of the company on the certification.
I agree completely Nick, but I have met a lot of amateur designers who design, build, then start to think about the regs. I'm not convinced that this hasn't happened here.
G
G
