new gyroplane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly interesting. Nice computer graphics but I am always left wondering how much more design effort has already gone into projects like this than these renderings. Then of course there is also the matter of gaining the substantial finance to do the required R&D, detailed design and certification work (etc, etc) to get such concepts into production.
The article has a few inconsistencies: It says "top rotor is pitch-controllable" but in same sentence "...it doesn't appear to be collective-controllable". It also mentions use of an electric motor to spin the rotor for take-off and landing and that traditional gyroplanes have unpowered rotors. However autogyros / gyrocopters have had an ability to spin up the rotor for years already, I am fairly sure back to the days of Cierva.
The bit that has me puzzled is the comment about "wings take over 90% of the lift duties, and the top rotor can be slowed right down. This reduces drag, and more or less eliminates the asymmetrical lift...". What does this actually mean? Are the retreating blades still advancing in relative terms to their local airflow?
Might be timely to watch this nicely produced mini-documentary on the Rotodyne:
They indicate the rotor of the Rotodyne still generated about half the lift in cruise, perhaps less in the case of the planned production Rotodyne (with its larger wingspan).
The article has a few inconsistencies: It says "top rotor is pitch-controllable" but in same sentence "...it doesn't appear to be collective-controllable". It also mentions use of an electric motor to spin the rotor for take-off and landing and that traditional gyroplanes have unpowered rotors. However autogyros / gyrocopters have had an ability to spin up the rotor for years already, I am fairly sure back to the days of Cierva.
The bit that has me puzzled is the comment about "wings take over 90% of the lift duties, and the top rotor can be slowed right down. This reduces drag, and more or less eliminates the asymmetrical lift...". What does this actually mean? Are the retreating blades still advancing in relative terms to their local airflow?
Might be timely to watch this nicely produced mini-documentary on the Rotodyne:
They indicate the rotor of the Rotodyne still generated about half the lift in cruise, perhaps less in the case of the planned production Rotodyne (with its larger wingspan).
What's doing the anti-torque duties during the vertical takeoff? Unless it's a tip jet or something, but even then there'd need to be some yaw control.
Ah, disregard - two pusher props so I suppose variable thrust on those? But only if there's some kind of disc tilt mechanism to sort out the other two axes.
Ah, disregard - two pusher props so I suppose variable thrust on those? But only if there's some kind of disc tilt mechanism to sort out the other two axes.
I wondered the same as the article indicated "spin the top rotor up fast enough for vertical takeoff AND landing". But their website ( https://arcaerosystems.com/linx-p9/ ) gives a slightly more detailed explanation: "...electric spin-up motor used only prior to take-off". They also have a brochure at the same link, but there is not too much more detail in that.
The following users liked this post:
I haven't done any calculations, but that will be a significantly sized battery to vertically lift a 4200# airframe, 1300# fuel, and 1800# of people. I suppose it could be recharged during flight by running the electric motor as a generator, but that will take fuel. As for running it on hydrogen, basic fuel energy density calculations of hydrogen vs liquid hydrocarbon suggest there will be a volume issue.... as well as cryogenic/pressure tank issues. Hydrogen might be good for trucks and buses.
