DONG090909 Conjecture when the rotor has forward speed

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

dong090909

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
101
Location
GuangDong China
1. First guess
The conditions for the lift balance of the coaxial anti-propeller rigid double rotors are: the upper and lower rotors are in the same phase
Proof method:
Junior high school mathematics and physics: vector analysis of forces
2. Second conjecture (an extreme case of the first conjecture)
If the number of blades can be infinite , the lift balance of the upper and lower rotors can be achieved at every moment. a flying saucer

3. Background:
A. When I first saw the Sikorsky ABC rotor concept, I remembered: the differential compensation theory commonly used in electronics, I think its biggest benefit should be to reduce lift fluctuations.
B. I'm curious: why the great companies don't mention: Conditions for rotor lift balance. At least I can't search it. And it affect the direction in which humans resolve lift fluctuations
C. I estimate:
---Flexible rotor, it really doesn't make sense.
---The rigid rotor is subject to the influence of the few blades of the mainstream helicopter, which does not reflect the value (more blades, low flight efficiency)
D. I tried simple communication with aviation professionals on the mainland, at least they did not overturn my point of view.
E. Unfortunately: these two conjectures are an important aerodynamic basis for the aircraft I designed.

4. Therefore, I hope you can review my conjecture.

Thanks
 

Martin W

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
209
.

You need to understand why helicopters cannot fly fast

---- the tips of helicopter blades are moving at 300 mph air speed
---- but when the helicopter is flying forward at 100 mph the advancing blade now experiences 400 mph airspeed and the retreating blade sees only 200 mph
--- - it is called dissymmetry of lift ... and the high speed advancing blade flies higher than the retreating blade (the rotor system becomes tilted sideways)

Sikorsky ABC uses counter-rotating blades to mainly use the advancing blades for lift and speed ..... cost millions of dollars to gain a bit of speed . Not practical .

You are not alone.
Some of the smartest engineers in the world work on advanced rotor systems and they hit brick walls all the time

.
 

Martin W

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
209
.

TFF ... looks like were were typing the same things at the same time.
Good post ... thanks.
 

dong090909

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
101
Location
GuangDong China
Is this what you are looking for?

The document is the compensation method of a single rotor, and my plan is a compensation method of two rotors up and down, working together.
Anyway, many thanks for sharing the information.
thanks.
 

dong090909

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
101
Location
GuangDong China
.

You need to understand why helicopters cannot fly fast

---- the tips of helicopter blades are moving at 300 mph air speed
---- but when the helicopter is flying forward at 100 mph the advancing blade now experiences 400 mph airspeed and the retreating blade sees only 200 mph
--- - it is called dissymmetry of lift ... and the high speed advancing blade flies higher than the retreating blade (the rotor system becomes tilted sideways)

Sikorsky ABC uses counter-rotating blades to mainly use the advancing blades for lift and speed ..... cost millions of dollars to gain a bit of speed . Not practical .

You are not alone.
Some of the smartest engineers in the world work on advanced rotor systems and they hit brick walls all the time

.
My main idea is that the rotor is only used for lifting and landing, while the fixed wing is used for flight
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,054
--- - it is called dissymmetry of lift ... and the high speed advancing blade flies higher than the retreating blade (the rotor system becomes tilted sideways)
And the cyclic, in forward flight, also has the retreating blade at a higher AOA as well. To tilt the rotor forward, the max blade pitch must be at 90° before it reaches aft side due to gyroscopic precession, and at minimum pitch 90° after, making the advancing blade at a lower AoA. A happy coincidence of physics that makes the helicopter's limited forward speed possible at all.

Nothing else works.

So much more going on there than what meets the eye. So much to trip up the young inventors just like it tripped up the old guys 100 years ago. Physics, as far as I know, hasn't changed its laws one bit....
 

Jay Kempf

Curmudgeon in Training (CIT)
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
4,524
Location
Warren, VT USA
Gyroscopic precession is a real monkey wrench in understanding all this. However is you are past that you then need to understand this thing called Mu.
"The ratio of the forward speed of a helicopter to the tip speed of its rotor is expressed as µ (Mu)."

The best and brightest like the people involved in the: AH56, X-2, ABC, Carter Copter, etc.. ; have (had) been dancing on this variable using slowed rotor and crazy stiff and CG tailored coaxial rotor blade designs.

Doing a little research on those that have gone before you might shed some light on how the problem has been dissected in the past.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,052
Location
Memphis, TN
It is what happens on any rotor. If you have two coaxial rotors, they are trying to the same thing opposite each other. Good and bad. Counter acts the torque and equalizes lift, but blades crash into each other. Without a lot of space between them, which is what you tend to see, the blades have to be very ridged in flapping motion. Lots of stress on the rotor head if stiff; it has to be very strong. Much stronger than if it can flap. Lots of space between the blades has the blades operating in different environments. Top blade sucks in clean air but bottom blade sucks in air from top blade. They will be different in blade angles. Going forward can introduce clean air to the bottom blades messing up the amount of air it was seeing in hover. Very complicated stuff to fix. Sikorsky has put the blades as close together as they can, has very stiff rotors, and the computer makes the retreating blade go flat making it invisible air wise. Lift only made with advancing blades each side.
 

dong090909

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
101
Location
GuangDong China
I still feel that you have not answered my question directly.
Also, you cite the idea of a flexible rotor
No here: swashplate, no tilt, no pitch adjustment, no change in angle of attack
Do not pursue the ratio of forward speed to wingtip speed
Gyroscopic precession is also known as the gyroscopic effect, and this aircraft does have a use
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,054
No here: swashplate, no tilt, no pitch adjustment, no change in angle of attack
No control, either. It's been tried many times. The articulated rotor is necessary for controllability. The early helicopter experiments never had any success until Sikorsky developed the fully articulated rotor.

"Rigid rotor" does not mean that the rotor is not articulated. It means that it uses elastomeric or flexible metal pivots instead of hinges and bearings. Some make the blade itself flex in all three axes to do the same thing. It's not like an airplane's fixed-pitch propeller at all.

Youtube used to have a video of some Eastern European fellow trying to fly his machine that had two propellers, one on each side and driven off a singe engine. Weight-shift control. As soon as it was off the ground, or even light on its casters, it had a mind of its own. There was a crosswind, which meant the the blades advancing into the wind had more lift, picking up that side, and gyroscopic precession would cause it to tilt 90 degrees to that and it was instantly in trouble. Totally unflyable.

Like I said on a thread somewhere recently, the stuff we see is the stuff that works. The stuff we don't see has usually been tried many times and doesn't work. Aviation history is packed full of failures. The whole field has been thoroughly explored.

What aviation needs is not more attempts of the same things that failed. It needs revolutionary stuff like:

-new, strong, lighter, cheaper structural materials

-new, lighter, cheaper, safer and more powerful motor systems or engines, and that includes batteries

Those two things alone would revolutionize VTOL flight. The airplane and the car appeared shortly after practical internal combustion engines were designed. Faster, bigger and safer aircraft, and more capable helicopters, appeared when the turbine engine became worthwhile. They were revolutionary technologies.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,825
Location
Port Townsend WA
No here: swashplate, no tilt, no pitch adjustment, no change in angle of attack
That's standard for the 200 or so new evtol designs.
Looks like the four corner props are variable speed control props that tilt for forward thrust.
The fixed central large rotors are lift rotors that stop after wing borne flight.
The concept might work.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,052
Location
Memphis, TN
Retreating blade efficiency applies no matter if you have controls or not. You might not go fast enough for retreating blade stall, but the effect is still there.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,825
Location
Port Townsend WA
He doesn’t have any retreating blades with his tilt props and stopped main rotors.
I don’t think his design is understood here. Go back and look at the paper model.
 
Last edited:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,052
Location
Memphis, TN
They got to be spinning sometime, even if he stops them.

Then you get into a torque issue spinning them up or down. Want folding helicopter blades? Fly them below a certain rpm and they fold like a book. To spin them back up from a stop in the air has to be slow. If his top and bottom blades are coupled the torque will be canceled, but if they are variable it will wrap itself into a ball, assuming the blades don’t fold. It’s what makes rotor blade stalls scary. The chance of the blades folding is competing with them being out of control and chopping the tail off.

If it is only going to fly 60kts, the wings need to be a lot bigger. 0-60 is a great helicopter speed range. 25-60 is the meat of the 103 flying range. At such a slow speed everything is fighting it’s self and nothing is dominant. It’s not a good airplane nor helicopter.

In this design he needs to separate the factions. Make a helicopter and make an airplane. At some point in the flight profile it has to convert to one or the other, so it is expected to be able to do either. Then add them together once the individuals are sorted. The plan might be together but they have to work separately.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,054
It isn’t a helicopter. The new generation are almost all rigid fixed pitch blade “ multi-rotor”
Yeah, but they're not coaxial. Coaxial propellers won't give any control. The multirotor things have rotors on arms well spaced out, and use RPM control for aircraft pitch and roll and vertical flight. For yaw, they would increase RPM on the ones turning one direction, and slow the ones turning the opposite direction. The big problem with all of that is the potential for failure of ANY part of the system. It won't autorotate. Parachutes are no good at the typical operating altitudes. Things happen fast with such failures, and it would have to be flown by computers with several backups, and all the motors and props would need to be big enough to carry the machine if a certain percentage of them were disabled.

Like so many machines, a hybrid using wings and rotors is a compromise of numerous concepts, and you end up with an unhappy machine whose utility is minimal. Where is the Moller Skycar? Where is the Fairey Rotodyne? Where are the Cierva and Pitcairn and McCullough and Air & Space autogyros? How affordable and practical is the V-22 Osprey?
 
Top