VTOL Research, Development and Product ~ by Wikinomics
 

The domain of VTOL, specifically that of rotorcraft, has seen limited advancements since the original ones. There are many reasons for this. However, today there are more limitations then there were in the past; additional limitations such as a shortage of ideas and the very high costs of taking the promising ideas on forward into operational products.

The current industry appears to consist of a few well financed companies, which are perhaps putting their financial statements ahead of their product development, plus a number of very small ventures, which lack financing and technical depth.

There may be a new and alternative method. A method that can be participated in by geographically dispersed personnel. A method that can bring together many people from different disciplines, having the common interest of technological pursuit, plus the possibilities of creative satisfaction and financial rewards. :8


The Means:


A book on the subject.

. .

Thoughts?

Dave,
Did you read the book?

see this post from Cran, I think its post #18 on this thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...er#post1845450

Another I. I. Sikorsky quote
 

"The work of the individual still remains the spark that moves mankind ahead, even more than teamwork."

slowrotor;

A 5-part newspaper article entitled [Mass collaboration unleashes 'Us' power] said that the book was due out today. I have ordered it.

CRAN's post is a good one. However, I have tried to initiate the same concept in the past, with no luck. It appears that inventors are a proud people with their own ideas and a fear of divulging them. This is unfortunate since a large percentage of ideas are flawed and a polite critique by others allow the individual to adjust his idea or move on to a new one.

A few random thoughts on a proposed methodology;

1. Projects: The system would not be limited to one project. It would be inclusive of all; from overall concepts to new unique components. It might be a structured forum and repository of technically VTOL related disciplines. Perhaps with a high level of privacy, some engineers at existing helicopter companies might enjoy contributing to the development of novel ideas, which they are unable to pursue at their companies.
2. Patents: (I think; re US patents) The public disclosure of a new idea stops others from patenting it. However, a patent application must be applied for within a year of the public disclosure. Then a low-cost Patent Application can be obtained. Then there is a year before the start of the conversion to a full patent must be started. The person is therefore protected for a number of years while the 'group' collectively improves the idea or give cause as to its fatal shortcomings.
3. Renumeration: All viable products might be patented in the name of the 'group' with the members of the group voting on the division ratio of any renumeration received from that product or invention.

IFMU;

By 8:45 AM today (Jan 2, 2007) the top 100 CEO's had earned more money than the average worker will earn during the total year.

Perhaps the the Internet is changing the world from yesterday's technological capitalism, and today's fiscal capitalism, to tomorrow's collective capitalism. :ooh:

Dave

Dave,
Of course, there may be other explanations of equal validity. If you are going to invite the whole world to feast at your table of helicopter design, are the people who are actually capable of designing, building, and flying a helicopter going to want to rub elbows with the guys who want to carve rotor blades out of 2x4's from Home Depot and power it with an Evinrude outboard? Or would they consider that a needless distraction?

Have you ever heard the term 90% finished, 90% to go? It is commonly used in the homebuilding scene, meaning that once the project looks like an aircraft you still have a long way to go to all the way finished. If you consider today's helicopters, I would call them 90% evolved. That last 10%, which would yield the ultimate performance and safety that a helicopter could ever achieve, is a bigger job than what it took to get to where we are today. That 10% is a combination of structural, aerodynamic, powerplant, and weird science (like morphing blades and IBC) which is not quite in the realm of practical yet. Nor may it ever be. We push toward the 91% solution with fault tolerant designs, better crashworthiness, better rotor blades, engines with better SFCs, but it is a long way before we even start working on 92%. But, as these technologies mature to the point where it isn't a pipe dream to implement them, you can bet the big dog companies will jump on the bandwagon. After all, each one of those top 100 CEOs wants to beat the average worker by 8:40 next year, and sooner the year after.

-- IFMU

Dave,

Happy new year. :ok:

While the concept intrigues me, in the real world my time is precious and i imagine most folk fall into the same category. I am about to take a up a project at "the other end of the transportation spectrum", where we are already working with globally distributed engineering design teams. That and still having two more courses to complete my physics degree means that flying already sits uncomfortably on the back burner :{

The real question has to be how serious are you? You have come up with many proposals, since first introducing me to PPrune (thanks for that BTW). I realise you are serious about manufacturing composite blades, but a whole light heli requires a new level of dedication to detail. There is something to be said for having a definate timeline and budget, although i realise the idea is to avoid this. For a start there is a commitment to finding the best idea, then sticking with it until it performs. My real concern is that this would just become an exercise is documenting ideas, but nothing would ever actually fly.

Mart

Dave,
I think a group effort is unlikely. I might participate in a group effort but I would be working on my own design as well.

I think we should each work alone, as each project is so different, but get help from the group as needed.
So forming a voluntary design assistance group would be good.

Taking on the challenge of designing and building a rotorcraft is giving me some distress (heartburn). But I feel I have no other choice, nothing else would be as interesting. So my plan now is to break the process into small chewable parts.

got to run now to Home Depot for a 2x4

Mart;

I don't think that Wikinomics is globally distributed engineering design teams.

slowrotor;

Based on my limited knowledge, your last post appears to represent the primary feature of Wikinomics. Wikinomics is a collection of people in a common domain who are working on their own projects.

Example are;
~ The thousands of people contributing to the Linux operating system while working on individual projects.
~ IBM employees, clients, business partners and even family members, from 160 countries participating in a wide-open brainstorming session called the InnovationJam.
~ Google employees are required to dedicate 20 percent of their time to personal projects.

Wikinomics appears to be a potential alternative to the improbable 'group effort on a common project'.

Dave

Dave, you got me confused. So the purpose of the Wikinomics exercise is just to share wisdom? Rotorheads already serves exceptionally well as a means of exchanging ideas and discussing designs. The engineering group effort is a means to produce (hopefully) a competetive product in the marketplace. As long as Heliport has no objections, i don't see why you can't go into more technical details on Rotorheads. In fact i suspect going into the nuts and bolts more may be welcome, unless you mean Rotorheads is too open for commercially sensitive material. :confused:

Mart

Mart,

Rotorheads is "A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them." therefore an excessive amount of technical stuff clogging the bandwidth may not be appreciated. This was the case on Rotary Wing Forum a while back.

I speculate that Wikinomics is more than a forum. The book should clarify things, when it arrives.

Dave

Dave,

How many millions of crashes did they/do they have between stable linux releases? A crash on a PC is not so bad as a crash in a helo. That's a major difference.

-- IFMU

I may be laughing at my own joke, but this really got me going. I hate it when I can't stop laughing at work and people think I'm nuts! Just make sure there aren't too many knots in it, and put them out at the tip! :)
-- IFMU

IFMU, i used to know a guy in Oxfordshire who was one of the few in the UK qualified to repair wooden gliders. Since he also did composites and aluminium, interesting guy to talk to. I gather that spruce is only considered aero grade from so far above the ground to so far below the first branch!
How the Mosquito was manufactured is anyones guess, considering how many were made. I imagine that they graded wood for suitability in different parts of the airframe - clever chap DeHavilland. :uhoh:

Mart

IFMU,
The late B.J. Schramm who founded Rotorway used an Evinrude outboard in his early sport heli designs.

But I see your point about crank inventors. A crank is someone who refuses to review the known data before proceeding. I think I am not a crank but sometimes that's not always clear.

One more try.
 

If Wikinomics is not the answer then how about the apparently simpler;

Google ~ Docs & Spreadsheets


Dave

_____________________________


Quick and dirty presentation of an idea for a project for a single device for Improving the Teetering Rotor by;

 Improved Flight-Control;
~ By providing a constant control moment from a 2-bladed teetering rotor when the control-plane is moved out-of-plane from the mast-plane.

 Greater Rotor Inertia;
~ For entry into autorotation and for landing flare, without increasing the centrifugal force on the blades.

 Stability Augmentation System;
~ Somewhat similar to the Bell, Hiller and Lockheed units.

 Gyrocopter Jump-Takeoff;
~ Improved gyrocopter jump-takeoffs; due to the additional rotational inertia that can be developed before takeoff.


Proposed Means:

 Improved Flight-Control:
~ A simple teetering rotor will generate a constant lateral force at the top of the mast when the disk is tipped. However, it cannot create a moment at the top of the mast, which is added to this force.

~ The rotor is modified to include a http://www.unicopter.com/B329.html#Hub_Spring hub spring or http://www.unicopter.com/B329.html#T...or_with_Offset 2-blade teetering rotor w/ offset.

~ The inclusion of one of the above two devices will generate 2/rev moments at the top of the mast when the disk is tipped.

~ A 'gyro-assemblage' is located inline with the rotorhead and it also applies 2/rev moments, which are offset 90º to the rotor's moments.

~ Half of this rotor-generated 2/rev moment will be applied to the mast, for greater control every 180º of rotation.

~ The other half of this 2/rev moment is applied to the gyro-assemblage, to reorient its position.

~ The gyro-assemblage re-orientates at twice the rate that the rotor turns.

~ The end result is that the gyro-assemblage also generates a 2/rev moment at the top of the mast, however, its moments are 90º out of phase with the rotor-disk generated moment.

~ The objective being a constant moment at the top of the mast that is combined with the constant teetering force.

 Stability Augmentation System:
~ Utilizes the gyro-assemblage.

 Greater Rotor Inertia:
~ The gyro-assemblage has;
~ Low mass, high rotational speed.
~ Is rotated by speed-up from the mast or by electric motor(s)

 Gyrocopter Jump-Takeoff:
~ Conventional gyrocopter control system must be changed to swashplate or spider type.
~ Rotating gyro-assemblage will generate very little rotational drag. This eliminates the tendency to rotate the craft on the ground, as does the application of the energy to the rotor.

:8

All the RC model helos seem to have moved away from the two-blade teetering in the early days, the current designs are using two-blade without the teetering hinge.
This hingeless(rigid hub) design that models use is virtually the same as your proposed teetering hub with a hub spring, I think.

I have not found any reason why a two-blade rigid hub with flexable blades would not work on a full size(ultralight).

The rigid head has gyro stability in the main rotor.
The rigid head has control moment at the mast.
The rigid head has less parts.
The rigid head has no problems with zero G.

What is wrong with a rigid two-blade rotor?

slowrotor,

• Operation of Teetering Rotor: A movement of the cyclic stick off of its central position will result in the teetering rotor disk tipping in the direction of the cyclic stick. This causes a constant force at the top of the mast, which pulls the fuselage in the same direction.
• Rigid Rotor: Making the 2-bladed rotor rigid will result in a 2/P moment at the top of the mast, The rotor will only apply its full moment when the blades are pointing in the direction of tipping and it applies no moment when the blades are normal to the direction of tipping.
• One objective of this idea: To develop a means of eliminate this 2/rev vibration.

Dave

Dave,
The 2/rev vibration only happens during a roll maneuver, I think.

slowrotor,

IMHO, there should not be any significant difference between a roll maneuver and a pitch maneuver. The fuselage moment and the HS will offer a greater resistance to pitch than to roll and this might result in the 2/rev pulse during pitch being a little less noticeable.

The hub spring will act similar to a rigid hub with flexible blades. This page give information related to the hub spring and attempts by others, such as Bell, to overcome the 2/rev vibration. http://www.unicopter.com/1230.html

Dave

Dave Jackson :confused:


I don't see any problem.


Heliport