Aerodynamics ~ Yaw and Twin Rotors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerodynamics ~ Yaw and Twin Rotors
It is stated that a disadvantage of twin rotor helicopters is the lack of authoritative yaw control. In addition, this problem intensifies during autorotation.
Coaxial helicopters rely on differential collective to provide all of the rotor induced yaw control and intermeshing helicopters rely on differential collective to provide some of the rotor induced yaw control. This differential collective necessitates pedal reversal during autorotation and this, in turn, probably entails some concern during flare.
_______________________________
There is a future solution, which would appear to be totally effective and without cost.
At some point in the near future rotors will be produced that have Active Blade Twist . This in-flight 'twistability' will result in greater payload/GW ratios during hover and forward flight. Soon afterwards, these blades will be further improved to provide Reverse Velocity Utilization , and this will increase the helicopter's maximum forward speed.
The blades on the above rotors have the ability to vary their root pitch and their tip pitch, independently . In addition, both of the cyclic pitch changes need not be greater than once per revolution.
Yaw Control for Twin Rotor Configurations can be effected by simply leaving one rotor in the conventional hover profile. (i.e. large positive root pitch and average positive tip pitch) and then placing the counterrotating rotor in a high drag profile (i.e. large negative root pitch and reasonably high positive tip pitch). This difference in rotational drag will yaw the craft. In addition, the direction of yaw will stay the same during autorotation.
Any arguments?
Coaxial helicopters rely on differential collective to provide all of the rotor induced yaw control and intermeshing helicopters rely on differential collective to provide some of the rotor induced yaw control. This differential collective necessitates pedal reversal during autorotation and this, in turn, probably entails some concern during flare.
_______________________________
There is a future solution, which would appear to be totally effective and without cost.
At some point in the near future rotors will be produced that have Active Blade Twist . This in-flight 'twistability' will result in greater payload/GW ratios during hover and forward flight. Soon afterwards, these blades will be further improved to provide Reverse Velocity Utilization , and this will increase the helicopter's maximum forward speed.
The blades on the above rotors have the ability to vary their root pitch and their tip pitch, independently . In addition, both of the cyclic pitch changes need not be greater than once per revolution.
Yaw Control for Twin Rotor Configurations can be effected by simply leaving one rotor in the conventional hover profile. (i.e. large positive root pitch and average positive tip pitch) and then placing the counterrotating rotor in a high drag profile (i.e. large negative root pitch and reasonably high positive tip pitch). This difference in rotational drag will yaw the craft. In addition, the direction of yaw will stay the same during autorotation.
Any arguments?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Dave:
While the Chinook and H-46 don't have eye watering yaw control, they certainly aren't all that bad. Interesting idea, though. Interesting failure cases, too, I'd imagine.
While the Chinook and H-46 don't have eye watering yaw control, they certainly aren't all that bad. Interesting idea, though. Interesting failure cases, too, I'd imagine.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Shawn;
Thanks for the critique.
Yes, the tandem helicopters are able to use opposed lateral cyclic for yaw. This is functionally identical to the earlier side-by-side configured helicopters, which used opposed longitudinal cyclic.
Unfortunately, on configurations with closely spaced rotors, such as the intermeshing and the coaxial, this opposed cyclic is of little to no use.
Thanks for the critique.
Yes, the tandem helicopters are able to use opposed lateral cyclic for yaw. This is functionally identical to the earlier side-by-side configured helicopters, which used opposed longitudinal cyclic.
Unfortunately, on configurations with closely spaced rotors, such as the intermeshing and the coaxial, this opposed cyclic is of little to no use.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As my name implies, I feel I should contribute!
Whilst 'rate' of yaw in the CH47 may not be 'eye watering', it is certainly high enough to achieve impressive translational lift, normally on the aft head, demanding large amounts of aft cyclic!!
Not sure I could cope with any more!!!
Whilst 'rate' of yaw in the CH47 may not be 'eye watering', it is certainly high enough to achieve impressive translational lift, normally on the aft head, demanding large amounts of aft cyclic!!
Not sure I could cope with any more!!!
Being a Chinook Pilot as well.....I can most assuredly promise you the absence of yaw control in the "A" model version could become "eyewatering" when you forgot yourself as an instructor and turned the SAS system off on a transition student in a turn without advance notice and confirmed and verified response from the guy at the controls acknowledged what was about to happen.
You ever hear droop stops pound on both heads as the aircraft slewed completely sideways at 100 knots despite full pedal being stuffed as hard as you could push it? Eyes watered....bladders voided.....bowels leaked......and Instructors went home much wiser ! No wonder I drink too much!
You ever hear droop stops pound on both heads as the aircraft slewed completely sideways at 100 knots despite full pedal being stuffed as hard as you could push it? Eyes watered....bladders voided.....bowels leaked......and Instructors went home much wiser ! No wonder I drink too much!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandem, I'm fascinated. If you get TL "especially" on the rear disk, that implies it has a higher airspeed than the front; which in turn implies that the centre of rotation is not the middle of the aircraft, but somewhere closer to the front. I'm not saying you're wrong - I just wonder how that happens.
If this was in the hover then, and you wanted to spot turn quickly, your first control input would be pedal, followed shortly by aft cyclic. To stop - opposite pedal, cyclic forward. Yes?
Signed, a very inexperienced and occasional (but keen to know) R22-driver.
If this was in the hover then, and you wanted to spot turn quickly, your first control input would be pedal, followed shortly by aft cyclic. To stop - opposite pedal, cyclic forward. Yes?
Signed, a very inexperienced and occasional (but keen to know) R22-driver.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, I'm not sure how useful this idea might be.
You could use a small clamshell type Gurney flap on the trailing edge of each rotor blade. The "clamshell" could have a capacity for infinitely variable deployment from 0 to 90 degrees, and when fully extended, the 2 Gurney flaps (making up the "clamshell") would be deployed 90 degrees equally above and below the trailing edge.
This would have the effect of increasing or decreasing the drag of the rotor blade, with the variable deployment providing direct control over the amount of increase in drag. If the flaps (and mechanism) were small and light enough, they could even be cycled opened and closed during each rotorblade revolution to apply drag (and torque) where desired.
I can think of two possible means of inducing yaw with this idea. In one means, if we use the K-Max as an example aircraft, you could simply open the clamshells on both blades of a single rotorhead (without any rotational variance) to increase the drag on that rotorhead, to induce yaw. I think this would work well under power, but perhaps not too well during autorotation.
Another means would be to vary the opening of the clamshell so that only an advancing rotor blade on one rotorhead experienced increased drag. Say the clamshell started to open at 45 degrees after the advancing rotorblade passed over the rear of the fuselage, and closed again 45 degrees before passing over the nose of the fuselage. This would have the effect of increasing the drag on one side of the rotor disk, thus causing the aircraft to yaw towards the dragging side. I noticed on the K-Max that the advancing blade of each rotorhead passes over the fuselage, which would reduce the moment arm of an arrangment like this, but it might still work. I also think this arrangement might work better during autorotation.
Perhaps some cyclic control could also be built into this mechanism as well, since the K-Max already uses a flap type "tab" for cyclic control. This also might be a lot simpler than blade twisting.
I have no idea of the possible failure modes of an arrangement like this, but maybe the idea is useful.
PS - I also think this idea might work well with rigid rotorblades.
(edited to correct typo)
You could use a small clamshell type Gurney flap on the trailing edge of each rotor blade. The "clamshell" could have a capacity for infinitely variable deployment from 0 to 90 degrees, and when fully extended, the 2 Gurney flaps (making up the "clamshell") would be deployed 90 degrees equally above and below the trailing edge.
This would have the effect of increasing or decreasing the drag of the rotor blade, with the variable deployment providing direct control over the amount of increase in drag. If the flaps (and mechanism) were small and light enough, they could even be cycled opened and closed during each rotorblade revolution to apply drag (and torque) where desired.
I can think of two possible means of inducing yaw with this idea. In one means, if we use the K-Max as an example aircraft, you could simply open the clamshells on both blades of a single rotorhead (without any rotational variance) to increase the drag on that rotorhead, to induce yaw. I think this would work well under power, but perhaps not too well during autorotation.
Another means would be to vary the opening of the clamshell so that only an advancing rotor blade on one rotorhead experienced increased drag. Say the clamshell started to open at 45 degrees after the advancing rotorblade passed over the rear of the fuselage, and closed again 45 degrees before passing over the nose of the fuselage. This would have the effect of increasing the drag on one side of the rotor disk, thus causing the aircraft to yaw towards the dragging side. I noticed on the K-Max that the advancing blade of each rotorhead passes over the fuselage, which would reduce the moment arm of an arrangment like this, but it might still work. I also think this arrangement might work better during autorotation.
Perhaps some cyclic control could also be built into this mechanism as well, since the K-Max already uses a flap type "tab" for cyclic control. This also might be a lot simpler than blade twisting.
I have no idea of the possible failure modes of an arrangement like this, but maybe the idea is useful.
PS - I also think this idea might work well with rigid rotorblades.
(edited to correct typo)
Last edited by Flight Safety; 10th Jun 2003 at 00:32.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hilico
I would have to confess to not entirely understanding it myself ( Not being a TP like Shawn) All I can suggest is either the fact that the aft head produces more lift than the forward head (approx 55% - 45%)
Or more likely, because as pilots we all like the yaw turn to be done about the cockpit, are possible factors.
I would have to confess to not entirely understanding it myself ( Not being a TP like Shawn) All I can suggest is either the fact that the aft head produces more lift than the forward head (approx 55% - 45%)
Or more likely, because as pilots we all like the yaw turn to be done about the cockpit, are possible factors.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety,
Thanks for your ideas and concerns about yaw and autorotation.
As an overview;
It appears that your concern about the use of Gurney flaps during autorotation may not a problem. The following is from the Gyrodyne coaxial web page. It has some neat pictures of the tip brakes.
Shawn likes the idea of an offset teetering rotor 
, so this is the current area of development. The use of Gurney flaps, or some type of air brake could be ideal for this rotor.
If interested, here's two pictures of the mockup and a web page on the offset tri-teetering rotor. Assuming you don't object, the information in your post will be added to my site.
____________________
An interesting thread might be that of trying to think out what happens at each of the two disks of a Kamov coaxial helicopter when in autorotation, and why the pedals must be reversed.
Thanks for your ideas and concerns about yaw and autorotation.
As an overview;
- Tandem and side-by-side helicopters, with their widely spaced rotors, use opposed cyclic.
- Coaxial helicopters, with their concentric rotors, use differential collective.
- Intermeshing helicopters, with their closely spaced rotors, use opposed cyclic in conjunction with differential collective.
It appears that your concern about the use of Gurney flaps during autorotation may not a problem. The following is from the Gyrodyne coaxial web page. It has some neat pictures of the tip brakes.
"The Model 2C used Movable vertical surfaces (rudders) and differential collective in the rotors for yaw control. The results of the instrumented flight test indicated that the coaxial rotor configuration possessed excellent flying qualities in all regimes of flight except for the low speed autorotation where the yaw control means proved inadequate. In order to overcome this difficulty, Gyrodyne continued its research work toward improving the directional control characteristics. In March of 1953, the idea of using tip brakes on the tips of the rotor blades was conceived. Flight tests of this concept proved that the problem of effective yaw control in autorotation for a coaxial helicopter had been solved. This was a major breakthrough for the coaxial configuration[. The Company applied for and was granted Patent No. 2,835,331 on October 24, 1954."
, so this is the current area of development. The use of Gurney flaps, or some type of air brake could be ideal for this rotor. If interested, here's two pictures of the mockup and a web page on the offset tri-teetering rotor. Assuming you don't object, the information in your post will be added to my site.
____________________
An interesting thread might be that of trying to think out what happens at each of the two disks of a Kamov coaxial helicopter when in autorotation, and why the pedals must be reversed.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave is again solving problems that aren't! The typical twin rotor helo has gobs of yaw control power, down to low speed autorotation, where they tend to be very soft, but adequate (note that no twin rotor has failed to be certified, indicating adequate, if not spectacular yaw control. Dr. Maheyev of the Kamov bureau spent 1/2 hour with me defending autorotational yaw control for his coax helos, so he believes it!
Sasless, the fact that Chinooks swap ends at high speed is not a lack of yaw control, it is a lack of yaw stability, because Boeing builds no tails on their helos. Lack of tail fin (that rear pylon hardly qualifies) is the problem. Tail rotors are very powerful stabilizing devices, their disk area behaves like a fin of several times the area, because the disk produces lots of opposite thrust when it is cocked due to a yaw disturbence. Coax helos dont build opposing yaw through the rotors so they need the fin. This is similar to how the fenestrons behave, lots of control power but not lots of stability - thus the end plates.
Sasless, the fact that Chinooks swap ends at high speed is not a lack of yaw control, it is a lack of yaw stability, because Boeing builds no tails on their helos. Lack of tail fin (that rear pylon hardly qualifies) is the problem. Tail rotors are very powerful stabilizing devices, their disk area behaves like a fin of several times the area, because the disk produces lots of opposite thrust when it is cocked due to a yaw disturbence. Coax helos dont build opposing yaw through the rotors so they need the fin. This is similar to how the fenestrons behave, lots of control power but not lots of stability - thus the end plates.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
The lead post in this tread was about a future means of yaw control, which could be applicable to all twin rotor configurations.
Re: the tandem configuration; [edited], I previously erred by generalizing, and thereby implied that yaw authority is inadequate in this configuration.
Re: the intermeshing configuration; other pilots have said that autorotation is not ideal.
Re: the coaxial configuration; you say "note that no twin rotor has failed to be certified, indicating adequate, if not spectacular yaw control." I believe that Kamov has been unable to get US certification for the coaxial helicopter. Perhaps you can advise if the reason is technical or political.
The lead post in this tread was about a future means of yaw control, which could be applicable to all twin rotor configurations.
Re: the tandem configuration; [edited], I previously erred by generalizing, and thereby implied that yaw authority is inadequate in this configuration.
Re: the intermeshing configuration; other pilots have said that autorotation is not ideal.
Re: the coaxial configuration; you say "note that no twin rotor has failed to be certified, indicating adequate, if not spectacular yaw control." I believe that Kamov has been unable to get US certification for the coaxial helicopter. Perhaps you can advise if the reason is technical or political.
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 10th Jun 2003 at 13:23.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
What ever happened to the modified S76 that you had with the nose extention to develope Fly by Wire technology.
Dave
If these helicopters were fitted with AFCS ( Automatic Flight Control Sytems) or just the basic yaw control then surely you would just keep your feet of the pedals during the flare
Nick
Would it be practical/feasable for the fly by wire A/C to recocnise a engine failure and automatically enter Autorotation into wind, Flare, level (on Radalt) and land with no pilot intevention.
And finaly
Would you trust IT
What ever happened to the modified S76 that you had with the nose extention to develope Fly by Wire technology.
Dave
If these helicopters were fitted with AFCS ( Automatic Flight Control Sytems) or just the basic yaw control then surely you would just keep your feet of the pedals during the flare
Nick
Would it be practical/feasable for the fly by wire A/C to recocnise a engine failure and automatically enter Autorotation into wind, Flare, level (on Radalt) and land with no pilot intevention.
And finaly
Would you trust IT
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
The certification of ANY Russian product in the Western world is problematic, since their entire set of standards is quite different, down to the way the metals are qualified. This does not infer that they are sub-standard, just that it is hard to compare them to the Western rules. Since Certification means that the government assures its quality and safety, the process seems so expensive that it has just stopped. Third world countries accept the Russian standards, so sales go through in those places. For most Western countries, Bi-lateral agreements tie the standards to a common acceptance, so the certification process is defined and economically viable. JAR is an even tighter unification of the rules.
I do not believe the coaxial's yaw properties in low speed autorotation are an impediment to certification, I'd be surprised if it was a problem. The rudders seem to provide acceptable handling down to low speeds, which should allow proper flight envelope.
MaxNg, The SHADOW is in our boneyard now, cacooned for long term storage. It did well, teaching us all kinds of stuff about Comanche technologies.
Regarding FBW controls, the automation of tasks is what they do best, it would be possible to automate almost any task. An auto might be the hardest thing, since picking out a place and getting to it would be best left to the human. The entry down-collective move is a good candidate, however. FBW is really good at helping the pilot do pieces of tasks, like holding limits and such, so it could be a real helper in the auto entry (suppose the rules you programmed into the FBW said always obey the pilot's collective unless the rotor rpm was at a low level, and plunging down at a high rate - in that case put the collective down to stop the decay, then wait for the pilot to say "Thanks")
It is this kind of thinking that will go on to improve helicopter handling and safety, not necessarily highly complex mechanical configurations that attempt to build the handling in through geometrics. Such systems as anti-lock brakes and electronic fuel injection (both FBW systems now common in cars) show us the type of things we should be insisting on, I think.
A simple set of autopilot functions for robbie types could be cheap as dirt, if we opened our eyes to the fantastic work being done on RC helos, and applied their free thinking to our problems. For US experimental helos, flying such systems should be fairly easy.
The certification of ANY Russian product in the Western world is problematic, since their entire set of standards is quite different, down to the way the metals are qualified. This does not infer that they are sub-standard, just that it is hard to compare them to the Western rules. Since Certification means that the government assures its quality and safety, the process seems so expensive that it has just stopped. Third world countries accept the Russian standards, so sales go through in those places. For most Western countries, Bi-lateral agreements tie the standards to a common acceptance, so the certification process is defined and economically viable. JAR is an even tighter unification of the rules.
I do not believe the coaxial's yaw properties in low speed autorotation are an impediment to certification, I'd be surprised if it was a problem. The rudders seem to provide acceptable handling down to low speeds, which should allow proper flight envelope.
MaxNg, The SHADOW is in our boneyard now, cacooned for long term storage. It did well, teaching us all kinds of stuff about Comanche technologies.
Regarding FBW controls, the automation of tasks is what they do best, it would be possible to automate almost any task. An auto might be the hardest thing, since picking out a place and getting to it would be best left to the human. The entry down-collective move is a good candidate, however. FBW is really good at helping the pilot do pieces of tasks, like holding limits and such, so it could be a real helper in the auto entry (suppose the rules you programmed into the FBW said always obey the pilot's collective unless the rotor rpm was at a low level, and plunging down at a high rate - in that case put the collective down to stop the decay, then wait for the pilot to say "Thanks")
It is this kind of thinking that will go on to improve helicopter handling and safety, not necessarily highly complex mechanical configurations that attempt to build the handling in through geometrics. Such systems as anti-lock brakes and electronic fuel injection (both FBW systems now common in cars) show us the type of things we should be insisting on, I think.
A simple set of autopilot functions for robbie types could be cheap as dirt, if we opened our eyes to the fantastic work being done on RC helos, and applied their free thinking to our problems. For US experimental helos, flying such systems should be fairly easy.
Ah but Nick....autopilots on helicopters....get real....the cheapass operator mentality would still suggest they are already paying the pilot so why spend the dollar and a half more. The manufacturers will have to find a way around that if they ever hope to provide the "seatweights" with truely modern kit.
One man's opinion here......just like a very large Arabian oil company that continues to operate Bell 212's at night over water with no visible horizion or surface lights and tells the pilots it is not IMC/IFR thus both legal and safe without SAS/SCAS/Sperry kit.
One man's opinion here......just like a very large Arabian oil company that continues to operate Bell 212's at night over water with no visible horizion or surface lights and tells the pilots it is not IMC/IFR thus both legal and safe without SAS/SCAS/Sperry kit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
You say, "The certification of ANY Russian product in the Western world is problematic, ......... Third world countries accept the Russian standards .."
I believe that Canada has certified one Kamov model; but perhaps some consider Canada as a third world country. Make sure you get payment from the Canadian government before delivering the S-92's.
Enough humor.
Your avid support of the tail rotor configuration seems to be softening a little, at least in respect to the coaxial configuration. Is this a harbinger of a future relationship between Kamov and Sikorsky?
If so, then perhaps United Technologies / Sikorsky can put aside the old conflict with its former employee, Charles Kaman. Then the intermeshing configuration can continue to make the significant advancements in Rotorcraft that it formerly did under the Germans.
You say, "The certification of ANY Russian product in the Western world is problematic, ......... Third world countries accept the Russian standards .."
I believe that Canada has certified one Kamov model; but perhaps some consider Canada as a third world country. Make sure you get payment from the Canadian government before delivering the S-92's.
Enough humor.
Your avid support of the tail rotor configuration seems to be softening a little, at least in respect to the coaxial configuration. Is this a harbinger of a future relationship between Kamov and Sikorsky?
If so, then perhaps United Technologies / Sikorsky can put aside the old conflict with its former employee, Charles Kaman. Then the intermeshing configuration can continue to make the significant advancements in Rotorcraft that it formerly did under the Germans.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: International
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave:
Wasn't it rumoured that a Kamov type was imported into Canada and certificated without dual hydraulics against a safety case (risk assessment) - for aerial work only?
Weren't the FAA a little disturbed about this due to the cross boder operational arrangements?
Wasn't it rumoured that a Kamov type was imported into Canada and certificated without dual hydraulics against a safety case (risk assessment) - for aerial work only?
Weren't the FAA a little disturbed about this due to the cross boder operational arrangements?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another KOS
You may very well be correct.
The story I heard was that Canada was more inclined to certify it then the Americans because Canada did not have a significant rotorcraft manufacturing industry to protect. I think that this story came from Lu.
Hey Lu, where are you???
You may very well be correct.
The story I heard was that Canada was more inclined to certify it then the Americans because Canada did not have a significant rotorcraft manufacturing industry to protect. I think that this story came from Lu.
Hey Lu, where are you???
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NickLappos
Yer dam right it would be possible to install simple autopilot systems to even the small helo,s such as the R22, it,s even more feasable to install such aids to the new Hydrolically assisted R44.
It's seems crazy that you can by minature servos for R/C helicopters that are able to control yaw for under $200 but we still are unable to develope a simple AFCS for full size A/C.
Some years ago I saw a single seat light helicopter, I think it was called the "Angel" fly in the UK and at the time (1994 ish) it,s instrument panel consisted of one flat LCD screen that monitered Rrpm, Erpm, MAP, Barometric pressure, C/H temp, Oil temp, OAT and now doudt a few other things to boot, and as such it was able to calculate your density alt and MAP limits on screen with the added bonus that if any exceedances were recorded then the a/c flagged these up on screen, and required maintainance actions before it would let you start up again.
Computing technology has expanded exponentially since then and the cost of manufacturing such item would be insignificant compared to say a Rotor tach or altimiter, yet certification costs and reluctance to advance at a more realistic pace is actaully costing lives.
I fly the Mk 11 Puma and at £13 M with 4 screen EFIS and it gets its knickers in a twist if you try to display more than ten waypoints on its screen. and each one of these screens costs more than the "Angel"
Yer dam right it would be possible to install simple autopilot systems to even the small helo,s such as the R22, it,s even more feasable to install such aids to the new Hydrolically assisted R44.
It's seems crazy that you can by minature servos for R/C helicopters that are able to control yaw for under $200 but we still are unable to develope a simple AFCS for full size A/C.
Some years ago I saw a single seat light helicopter, I think it was called the "Angel" fly in the UK and at the time (1994 ish) it,s instrument panel consisted of one flat LCD screen that monitered Rrpm, Erpm, MAP, Barometric pressure, C/H temp, Oil temp, OAT and now doudt a few other things to boot, and as such it was able to calculate your density alt and MAP limits on screen with the added bonus that if any exceedances were recorded then the a/c flagged these up on screen, and required maintainance actions before it would let you start up again.
Computing technology has expanded exponentially since then and the cost of manufacturing such item would be insignificant compared to say a Rotor tach or altimiter, yet certification costs and reluctance to advance at a more realistic pace is actaully costing lives.
I fly the Mk 11 Puma and at £13 M with 4 screen EFIS and it gets its knickers in a twist if you try to display more than ten waypoints on its screen. and each one of these screens costs more than the "Angel"
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
The KA 32 is approved in Canada as a restricted catagory no passengers, which is not a real TC. This is granted when it can be shown that it is safe enough for crew use only. I think the motives have more to do with commercial loggers needing a lifter than softer criteria, as I know TC to be a tough and fair bunch, mostly.
The KA 32 is approved in Canada as a restricted catagory no passengers, which is not a real TC. This is granted when it can be shown that it is safe enough for crew use only. I think the motives have more to do with commercial loggers needing a lifter than softer criteria, as I know TC to be a tough and fair bunch, mostly.