Tail rotor and main rotor impact avoidance warning systems are being researched by a couple of manufacturers. Main rotor strike warning particularly useful for SAR aircraft and tail rotor system for all of us. Lets face it, what car doesn't come with a (lower tech) reversing warning option these days ?
pp.

the aircraft I am flying right now have tail camera's that look forward, mostly we use them to see whats going on around us on the ground, with the baggage bay etc. but it's great to know that we actually have a good way to confirm a fire now if required.

One that does not leak in slightest rain

helistudent- I don't mean to sound trite, but the reality is that all rotorcraft engineers put huge effort into making their designs highly reliable and "problem-free". I have worked with many of these engineers and I've never met one that would ignore an unsafe condition or sign-off on a design that had obvious problems. They all take their work very seriously and do the best they can. Every single part design has at least a dozen engineers from various disciplines (chief & project engineers, stress, dynamics, M&P, thermal, manufacturing, reliability, QA, etc.) review and sign-off on it.

As for the notion of "over-engineering" a gearbox to make it more reliable, I would simply point out that rotorcraft transmission components are already some of the most highly engineered parts in the world. They are designed and analyzed using the most advanced software tools, the highest quality materials are used, the manufacturing processes are very tightly controlled, and the entire design/manufacturing process is highly regulated by government agencies.

In reality, gearbox failures are rare. But when they do occur they can be catastrophic events. The reason is that there is only a single drive path from the engine input stage to the rotor, which can be disabled with certain types of failures. Normally this problem would be resolved by designing the aircraft with redundant and independent drivetrains and rotor systems, but this is not practical. If you or anyone else knows of a solution to this issue I'm sure the OEM's would love to hear about it.

Well FADEC is certainly a step in the right direction, but the reality is that in 20 years, most of us will probably still be flying machines that require 35 switches and buttons to be pressed in the right order just to get them going, and that burn down if you accidentally press them in the wrong order. And after that we'll all be replaced by drones anyhow...

How about a modern piston engine for light machines.

When you look at how efficiency in automotive engines has come along in the last 50 years I am sure we could have more efficient designs without sacrificing reliability.

I would be happy with a helicopter that has sufficient power to get airborne with:

• full tanks (range of at least 4 hours)
• every seat occupied (6 Pax)
• decent baggage compartment seize
• some reasonable baggage for the 6 passengers

"A capsule style composite cabin that separates from the frame in a major impact, rather than be integrated into the frame so it is crushed by the gearbox and engine."

Hughes solved this one with the A-frame and Engine relocated to the rear rather than overhead.
It is the main reason the 500 is so darn crashworthy.

riff raff - all I meant was that if there is such desire to see gearbox issues addressed is it not possible to go a little bit over the top in their design in an attempt to deliver what people want? It was just a question but I am sure gearbox technology is something which, like all engineering, is constantly progressing.

One of my first questions on the forum was about gearboxes and how all the helicopter loading is transmitted through them and how the helciopter's fuselage basically hangs from them. They are obviously at the heart of a helicopter's dynamic systems taking in power, converting it to thrust and bearing much of the weight of the helicopter.

I would be very interested to hear anything you have to say about gearbox advancement over the years such as some of the major advances which have taken place and what you think needs to happen next. If anything.

More ceramics in turbine engines and all composites in structures and oil less gearboxes. Come on young engineers and scientists stop spending so much time on consumers electronics and do something useful for a change.

Couldn't agree more. :D

Many moons ago Bell were toying with the idea of mercury-filled gearboxes. Quite what benefit this would have brought about I'm not sure.

Let's hope that Cameron's backing of Reaction Engines "Reaction Engines Ltd. can announce today the biggest breakthrough in aerospace propulsion technology since the invention of the jet engine" isn't just a load of heat-exchanged air!

UK Government Invests £60M in Spaceplane Engine > ENGINEERING.com

That's easy - just take any 8 or 10 place helicopter and remove a few seats

lelebebbel
written like a designer :E:ok:

Helistudent-

It is possible to make a indestructible MRGB with current technology. In fact they could make near enough indestructible helicopters if they so chose to.

The problem is, they'd be so damn heavy, they wouldn't be able to fly. Which would make them safer, for sure. ;)

Heli-Student,

Of interest (perhaps to some anyway), the BO 105 Main Gearbox was designed so that it does not carry any flight loads. The Mast and Mast Bearing take these loads and they are carried through the rather beefy titanium upper flange and transmitted by the A-Frame Struts to the fuselage.

On another note regarding Piston Engines; while I agree that there is potential for many inprovements re electronic ignition/FADEC etc., the
over-all idea that automotive technology is far superior always leaves out two
very important real world issues. Weight and power requirements. The average high end sports car has a very impressive power plant. Now run it
at max revs. for 2,000 odd hours and then add up the repair bills AFTER
it has failed and left you at the side of the road.

All the best,

Rigidhead