Rocket on Rotor: 1954 auxiliary steam power
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 83
From: Gold Coast, Australia
Rocket on Rotor: 1954 auxiliary steam power
Fascinating discussion of RoR, including Myrtle the Mysterious Manifold and the trials and tribulations getting the concept to a practical working result on the HRS-2 helicopter.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 40
From: On the big blue planet
Any material which leaves a nozzle produces thrust, so yes it's a rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_rocket
skadi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_rocket
skadi
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 13
Likes: 1
From: Ct USA
People still talked about this when I arrived at SA in 1963. The story told most often was when the peroxide leaked out at a time when no one was there. Peroxide is a potent oxidizer and the aircraft was constructed with a lot of magnesium. The aircraft was pretty much consumed. There was a lot of rusty steel left.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,111
Likes: 1,085
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
From the figures quoted it seemed that the extra weight of the fully laden system was just about compensated for by the extra performance.
Reminds me of the time we used to under sling air portable fuel containers (APFCs, commonly known as “bollocks”, because that’s what they resembled) in Belize, to set up a forward refuelling point. By the time we’d got them there, we had to refuel from them to get home...
Reminds me of the time we used to under sling air portable fuel containers (APFCs, commonly known as “bollocks”, because that’s what they resembled) in Belize, to set up a forward refuelling point. By the time we’d got them there, we had to refuel from them to get home...
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,165
Likes: 48
From: Kammbronn
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 62
Likes: 1
From: Stagnation Point
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 83
From: Gold Coast, Australia
From the figures quoted it seemed that the extra weight of the fully laden system was just about compensated for by the extra performance.
Reminds me of the time we used to under sling air portable fuel containers (APFCs, commonly known as “bollocks”, because that’s what they resembled) in Belize, to set up a forward refuelling point. By the time we’d got them there, we had to refuel from them to get home...
Reminds me of the time we used to under sling air portable fuel containers (APFCs, commonly known as “bollocks”, because that’s what they resembled) in Belize, to set up a forward refuelling point. By the time we’d got them there, we had to refuel from them to get home...
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,111
Likes: 1,085
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
ST, if you watched the complete video it showed a significant performance increase with the ROR installed. At about 16min into the video the ROR machine goes out against a standard HRS-2 and lifts an extra 800lb with the ROR fitted and tanked; the T/O appears noticeably quicker than the standard machine, too.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 83
From: Gold Coast, Australia
If anything it would show that the modified machine is lifting 800lbs more plus the weight of the ROR equipment, but that’s stretching assumptions with the info available.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,111
Likes: 1,085
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
If you go to the point I mentioned they have two HRS-2s as a direct comparison with identical loading internally, then add 800lb underslung to the RoR machine. I can’t see how you’re coming to your conclusion?
If anything it would show that the modified machine is lifting 800lbs more plus the weight of the ROR equipment, but that’s stretching assumptions with the info available.
If anything it would show that the modified machine is lifting 800lbs more plus the weight of the ROR equipment, but that’s stretching assumptions with the info available.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 83
From: Gold Coast, Australia
Gee whiz, we’re going round in circles here. I don’t recall saying the aircraft was operated over MAUW and the video specifically refers to limiting weights to aircraft specs. The comparison is of flying with standard two pilots and six troops, then adding the equivalent of another four troops to the ROR machine in the fly off.
The ROR system weighed in at 67lbs dry, with a tank capacity of 300lbs. One can only assume (and we’re both making assumptions here) that the fuel load was factored in to the take off weight, as would be the AVGAS, arriving at identical aircraft weights before adding the ballast equivalent to six troops.
The ROR system weighed in at 67lbs dry, with a tank capacity of 300lbs. One can only assume (and we’re both making assumptions here) that the fuel load was factored in to the take off weight, as would be the AVGAS, arriving at identical aircraft weights before adding the ballast equivalent to six troops.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,111
Likes: 1,085
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Sorry John, as you say, it’s all supposition so chill out a little. As far as I can see, the system was never adopted by any operator. There would have been good reasons for that.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: Manitoba Canada
I know of at least 2 peroxide - steam powered helicopters built and flown as test models. Very simple ... pretty much only one moving part (rotor) and once turning , the centrifugal force draws the H202 liquid to the tips where it passes thru a silver screen which acts as a catalyst to turn it into steam.
No fuselage torque but this one has a small low speed t/r for yaw control
Runs quiet as you can see
Pilot hand pumps initial fuel then uses a valve/throttle to control flow.
No fuselage torque but this one has a small low speed t/r for yaw control
Runs quiet as you can see
Pilot hand pumps initial fuel then uses a valve/throttle to control flow.
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 62
Likes: 1
From: Stagnation Point
As you state, the rotor thrust is proportional to the steady blade lag angle. To produce more thrust, the collective pitch angle is increased, which demands more torque at the rotorhead, up to the limits of the engine.
To allow more rotor thrust at a constant rotor RPM, the tip rockets allow additional pitch angle by compensating for the associated increased aero drag. The steady lag angle can be held at the previous value, hence the engine is providing the same power to the rotor as the baseline aircraft.
Essentially, the engine and rocket share the increased power requirement, with the engine operating within previously established limits. However, the differences in blade weight distribution (due to the plumbing), rotor dynamics (including transient loads due to rocket "ignition" and shutdown), static and fatigue loads, etc., must be considered before the system could be certified.
