In-Flight reconfiguring Airframe Rotor Disc Control
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Partial summary of the issues that need to be addressed and my approach. CF ordered from Sierra Composites. Waiting.
Regards,
Dave
http://www.envisionhelicopters.com/H...al_Summary.pdf
Regards,
Dave
http://www.envisionhelicopters.com/H...al_Summary.pdf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
finished the battery/receiver mount assembly, attached lower motor mount, started the upper bearing/motor mount. Video clip is the 2nd servo acutation, 1st servo after airframe changes. Correspondence w/ Williams Aerospace is steady, but only fixed wing UAS. They have great concepts.
Dave
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry it's been so long. I was in the field for a week and going to the field for 10 days next week. Such is my life in the Infantry. All that I have been able to do lately is gather parts for when I get a free moment to work. I may be changing web site providers so the "envision helicopters" site may be down for a bit until I get re-established with a new provider.
Take care.
Dave
Take care.
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My web site is down until I find another provider. I have found one and it should be up in a couple of weeks. Had surgery; in the process of recovering. Too many years in the Infantry. You can track the heo progress on you tube. Search "davh72able", morphing airframe helicopter" or "HIR"
Regards,
Dave
Regards,
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Temp web site until I get the other one up and going.
Apparently the word "blog" is a no no here. I hate blogs as well, but go to google and search for "envisionrotorsystems" with regard to blog.
motor fastened to lower mast bearing mount...see alt site.
Regards,
Dave
Apparently the word "blog" is a no no here. I hate blogs as well, but go to google and search for "envisionrotorsystems" with regard to blog.
motor fastened to lower mast bearing mount...see alt site.
Regards,
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back from con leave. They took the cast off yesterday, but still walk like a pirate. Within 3 weeks I hope to have updates and hopfully a 2nd flight test.
Dave
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upper mast bearing mounted; a few small changes need to be made; not using a power train from the motor to the reduction gear because the couplings are too long.
Dave
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4th servo actuation with the changes. Small adjustments here and there. Lower mast bearing mount changed from doubling as the upper motor mount to now being the lower motor mount/lower mast bearing. Couplings are too long for a drive train to spur. Going back to pinion direct to reduction gear, but motor will be about 4 mm lower tha original configuration.
Dave
Dave
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 30th Aug 2011 at 08:13. Reason: Fix YouTube link: again....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was running down the batt. in order to do a re-charge prior to the 2nd intended tether. The mixer burnt out. Parts ordered. "Murphy".
Dave
Dave
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 6th Oct 2011 at 22:26. Reason: Fix YouTube link: again....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been working with a frenzy trying to finish my wife's chair and end table along with my project. Got everything loosely put together yesterday and something on the bottom of the motor burnt out, but the motor still works. Some type of circular chip board on the base. Anyway, with the rotor hub loosely tweaked and no servo attachment, with 1/4 bat charge, the helo was lit on it's frame and stable. That surprised me because without the servo attached, the airframes can move forward and aft freely. Hope to have it going. Still need to tweak the hub assembly to tightend down the swah plate input control rods which serve no purpose no with out the swash,
Dave
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry it has been so long. 2nd prototype of my patent is up and flying.
This effort is not an attempt to replace any UAS. It is simply an update on my approach/effort to civil UAS and manned platforms. I am still not funded by the Army regarding my patent (Pat # 8,226,026 B2) nor is my endeavor to get the platform off of paper and into the air. But, I'm still going to keep "plugging" away on my own. The designs that I've given to the Army/DOD are separate. Further I have nothing to do with any military rotorcraft/aerospace programs outside of the designs that were given.
I finally made head way in getting the 2nd coaxial HIR prototype into the air with fairly good control for the first hop flight. No swash plate.
Some of you may be thinking it resembles the Japanese GEN H4 or the Airscooter coaxial systems, but those respective airframes, though innovative, are simply tilt mast and both airframes are fixed pitch. Now, my small scale coaxial is also fixed pitch, but it's not simply "tilt mast". It is two airframes that are interconnected with the upper airframe containing the rotor system, tilting independently from the lower airframe, thereby allowing for the application of full collective pitch and yet the weight remains equally distributed between both airframes. If the upper airframe tilts forward, the rotor thrust is vectored as well as the lower portion of the upper airframe that interconnects with the lower airframe via a longitudinal lever/airframe strut, moves aft, but at equal moments, "flexing" the CG rather than a lateral or linear shift in weight within the airframe. A sort of "pendulum" flex, if you will. My theory.
If you review the video clips of the GEN H4 flying, the operator appears to have a "cautious" hold on the control stick that tilts the power plants and masts, but it appears too "loose" as if it may be more easily to over correct, but I cannot be certain. It appears not to be intuitive. With "planform" morphing/HIR airframes, the control stick manipulates both airframes, but not in a "stick to the rotor discs" manner. Connecting the weight of both airframes together, to include the pilot weight in a manned platform, adjusts the the attitude of the upper airframe/masts for direction control. Should any atmospheric gusts hit the rotor discs, it will be translated into both airframes, pilot weight, and then to the control stick. That translation from the rotor discs is "buffered". Further, there may be better control feedback to the operator. With the GEN H4, an atmospheric gust would seem to translate straight to the control stick as the rotor masts/power plants ride on a single gimbal. My platform will use a gimbal as well, but there are always two attachment points between the two airframes with the control stick controlling movement between the two. The GEN H4 has one attachment point between the rotor discs and lower airframe. Two if you count the pilot's hand on the control stick. Now, I need to get the 1st single mast prototype flying. The airscooter again is fixed pitch. Further, it utilizes both a dif. gear system and a polychain pulley system.
Later this week, I will move outdoors and attempt maneuvering around obstacles. Last year, my original plan was to include some sort of "SMART" software that will assist in keeping the airframe in the most optimal configuration for translational flight. If you can remember learning to ride a bicycle and Mom or Dad kept their hand on the seat as you peddled away until you internalized the balance required and then they would let go of the seat. SMART software that can sense pilot control inputs and then make a decision of whether or not to adjust stick control input or take over. But, as of right now, my airframe is only a physical human interface regarding the weight of the pilot moving, interacting and assisting the airframe configuration in control of the platform/thrust vectoring during flight. Time will tell.
This effort is not an attempt to replace any UAS. It is simply an update on my approach/effort to civil UAS and manned platforms. I am still not funded by the Army regarding my patent (Pat # 8,226,026 B2) nor is my endeavor to get the platform off of paper and into the air. But, I'm still going to keep "plugging" away on my own. The designs that I've given to the Army/DOD are separate. Further I have nothing to do with any military rotorcraft/aerospace programs outside of the designs that were given.
I finally made head way in getting the 2nd coaxial HIR prototype into the air with fairly good control for the first hop flight. No swash plate.
Some of you may be thinking it resembles the Japanese GEN H4 or the Airscooter coaxial systems, but those respective airframes, though innovative, are simply tilt mast and both airframes are fixed pitch. Now, my small scale coaxial is also fixed pitch, but it's not simply "tilt mast". It is two airframes that are interconnected with the upper airframe containing the rotor system, tilting independently from the lower airframe, thereby allowing for the application of full collective pitch and yet the weight remains equally distributed between both airframes. If the upper airframe tilts forward, the rotor thrust is vectored as well as the lower portion of the upper airframe that interconnects with the lower airframe via a longitudinal lever/airframe strut, moves aft, but at equal moments, "flexing" the CG rather than a lateral or linear shift in weight within the airframe. A sort of "pendulum" flex, if you will. My theory.
If you review the video clips of the GEN H4 flying, the operator appears to have a "cautious" hold on the control stick that tilts the power plants and masts, but it appears too "loose" as if it may be more easily to over correct, but I cannot be certain. It appears not to be intuitive. With "planform" morphing/HIR airframes, the control stick manipulates both airframes, but not in a "stick to the rotor discs" manner. Connecting the weight of both airframes together, to include the pilot weight in a manned platform, adjusts the the attitude of the upper airframe/masts for direction control. Should any atmospheric gusts hit the rotor discs, it will be translated into both airframes, pilot weight, and then to the control stick. That translation from the rotor discs is "buffered". Further, there may be better control feedback to the operator. With the GEN H4, an atmospheric gust would seem to translate straight to the control stick as the rotor masts/power plants ride on a single gimbal. My platform will use a gimbal as well, but there are always two attachment points between the two airframes with the control stick controlling movement between the two. The GEN H4 has one attachment point between the rotor discs and lower airframe. Two if you count the pilot's hand on the control stick. Now, I need to get the 1st single mast prototype flying. The airscooter again is fixed pitch. Further, it utilizes both a dif. gear system and a polychain pulley system.
Later this week, I will move outdoors and attempt maneuvering around obstacles. Last year, my original plan was to include some sort of "SMART" software that will assist in keeping the airframe in the most optimal configuration for translational flight. If you can remember learning to ride a bicycle and Mom or Dad kept their hand on the seat as you peddled away until you internalized the balance required and then they would let go of the seat. SMART software that can sense pilot control inputs and then make a decision of whether or not to adjust stick control input or take over. But, as of right now, my airframe is only a physical human interface regarding the weight of the pilot moving, interacting and assisting the airframe configuration in control of the platform/thrust vectoring during flight. Time will tell.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 14th Aug 2012 at 21:53. Reason: Fix the YouTube link: don't put a url inside the YouTube tags!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still not satisfied. Repairs made....my fault....cheap hardware.
Airframe hit the ground from 15 feet....airframe was more rugged than I had expected. The combination adhesive with carbon fiber gusset plates was a good choice on my part. The battery/yaw control platform broke free. It still flew, but lost forward/aft control which I expected. Regarding planform morphing airframes, if there are not 2 points of connection with the weight equally distributed between both airframes, allowing both airframes to move within "one another" the lower airframe will act like a clock pendulum. I suppose my theory proved right. Scaling up to gas powered.
Airframe hit the ground from 15 feet....airframe was more rugged than I had expected. The combination adhesive with carbon fiber gusset plates was a good choice on my part. The battery/yaw control platform broke free. It still flew, but lost forward/aft control which I expected. Regarding planform morphing airframes, if there are not 2 points of connection with the weight equally distributed between both airframes, allowing both airframes to move within "one another" the lower airframe will act like a clock pendulum. I suppose my theory proved right. Scaling up to gas powered.
