# Rotor revolution

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### dong090909

##### Well-Known Member
I'll be blunt - If you really knew Mr. Sikorsky and studied more you'd know your idea [patent] is a pipe dream.

Igor has the same designs proposed by "Military Idealists" Hidden rotors, added wings. JATO, Ejection seats etc.

1. A wing forward of c/g adds a destabilizing effect on any rotor craft
2. rotors set too close to a fuselage subject it to drumming and collision [even rigid rotors flex] hub rigid not blades
3. Lower rotor hazards -FoD, hazardous ground handling, bad performance, tip strikes, Excessive landing gear highth
4, Aircraft entry, hovering = no hoist or parachute operations only exit is tail, cockpit = C/G limits?
5. autorotation - wings and more blades will cause a near vertical descent. A CH 53 is look at your crotch landing
6. weight of folding and storing rotors remove useful load [It's all about the load, the load is the reason]
7. going rigid rotor only means the hub action had feathering bearings blade will still flex, Lead, Lag, Flap, Cone.

I've seen this same idea 35 years ago. A Japanese student getting his helicopter certificate at Hiser,
Charles York and I spent days setting with him going over ideas. He too had ideas he thought were only his.

Igor was a fine practical man. One of his sons was a fine artist "Hi Sergi, My old man knew your old man"
My family worked at Los Angeles Airways [Mom Dad Aunt Uncle & George Bingo]
Sergi got a nice drawing of his fire hawk with a cartoon fireman... He has it with his other art work.

All the World's Helicopters and Rotorcraft - the most complete helicopter collection in the world. Helicopters, autogyros, tilt-rotors, tilt-wings etc.

Here's some links - Study more, Think how to move more cargo with less weight, parts, cost.
The Robinson Helicopter is #1 in sales ... A. cost B. 2 or 4 persons C. economically sound
Not because of a government contract - It fills a need. Low cost transportation.
I'm glad we were all forthright about technical issues.
If an unprecedented scheme is not questioned, I think it must be doubtful.
My respect for Sikorsky does not mean that I can't question his company's thinking, otherwise it would be blind worship.
Detail :
1. The fixed wing interferes with the rotor, this is certain, the question is how much impact when short-term working.
2. Too close to the fuselage is a problem, so is it impossible to use the altitude difference of the S-97 on this aircraft?
3. The problems and solutions of the lower rotor will be discussed later. Because this is the most easily criticized.
4. The steps for this aircraft to hover in the air will be complicated and inefficient, but it is not impossible.
5.?
6. The weight of death is an eternal topic, and the most important thing is: whether it can be accepted or not.
7. I understand that even with rigidity, the rotor still bends, what matters is: how much margin should we leave in the design

#### D Hillberg

##### Well-Known Member
5? Why the question mark on Autorotation? I've done thousands of practice and a few that saved my butt.

It's what makes a helicopter what it is. A good pilot can plant a helicopter with an engine or t/r failure anywhere.

and hovering isn't a bug - It's the most valuable asset a helicopter has. Rescue and long line work. big $$doing it. Look at materials good Look at weight issues good Look at processes of manufacture Okay If you look at why someone put a helicopter together the way they did you'll go further. Look at a Hiller... Look at a Bell... Look at a Sikorsky... Look at Robinson... A Hughes, A Lockheed, A McCullich, A Boing, A Kamov, A Mil, Rotorway, Safari, .... etc. Look at WHY they built their machines the way they did... They all had their philosophy behind their ideas. Got to start somewhere - History, Available materials at the time, Power plants, Mission. 184 mph, 600 lbs empty, 1300 lbs gross, single pilot, turbine power 145 hp. 9.9 gph. 32 gal -aluminum construction. -flown - Aerobatic - under construction - 4 blade rotor system, turbine powered, 150 hp, 52 gal fuel, honeycomb reinforced aluminum -unflown- #### dong090909 ##### Well-Known Member 5? Why the question mark on Autorotation? I've done thousands of practice and a few that saved my butt. It's what makes a helicopter what it is. A good pilot can plant a helicopter with an engine or t/r failure anywhere. and hovering isn't a bug - It's the most valuable asset a helicopter has. Rescue and long line work. big$$$doing it. Look at materials good Look at weight issues good Look at processes of manufacture Okay If you look at why someone put a helicopter together the way they did you'll go further. Look at a Hiller... Look at a Bell... Look at a Sikorsky... Look at Robinson... A Hughes, A Lockheed, A McCullich, A Boing, A Kamov, A Mil, Rotorway, Safari, .... etc. Look at WHY they built their machines the way they did... They all had their philosophy behind their ideas. Got to start somewhere - History, Available materials at the time, Power plants, Mission. View attachment 120552 184 mph, 600 lbs empty, 1300 lbs gross, single pilot, turbine power 145 hp. 9.9 gph. 32 gal -aluminum construction. -flown - View attachment 120553 Aerobatic - under construction - 4 blade rotor system, turbine powered, 150 hp, 52 gal fuel, honeycomb reinforced aluminum -unflown- 5? Why the question mark on Autorotation? I've done thousands of practice and a few that saved my butt. It's what makes a helicopter what it is. A good pilot can plant a helicopter with an engine or t/r failure anywhere. and hovering isn't a bug - It's the most valuable asset a helicopter has. Rescue and long line work. big $$doing it. Look at materials good Look at weight issues good Look at processes of manufacture Okay If you look at why someone put a helicopter together the way they did you'll go further. Look at a Hiller... Look at a Bell... Look at a Sikorsky... Look at Robinson... A Hughes, A Lockheed, A McCullich, A Boing, A Kamov, A Mil, Rotorway, Safari, .... etc. Look at WHY they built their machines the way they did... They all had their philosophy behind their ideas. Got to start somewhere - History, Available materials at the time, Power plants, Mission. View attachment 120552 184 mph, 600 lbs empty, 1300 lbs gross, single pilot, turbine power 145 hp. 9.9 gph. 32 gal -aluminum construction. -flown - View attachment 120553 Aerobatic - under construction - 4 blade rotor system, turbine powered, 150 hp, 52 gal fuel, honeycomb reinforced aluminum -unflown- I absolutely believe you are a respectable expert. I am also honored to meet a teacher like you, and I cherish the opportunity to ask you technical questions: The great U2 designer has also been called an idiot, and I haven't been treated like that, so I thank you for your courtesy. My idea is to gradually improve this aircraft. Another way of thinking: The upper and lower rotors of the fuselage are learned from UFOs. Do we think that UFOs have absolutely no essence that can be absorbed? This aircraft can achieve: vertical lift, fixed-wing flight, then it is already worth continuing to study. Hover performance improvement, I hope to achieve later. Remarks: When hovering, 4 tilting propellers can fight side winds #### D Hillberg ##### Well-Known Member Remove the folding rotors - Higher disk loaded [fans with collective pitch] on end of each wing. U-2 designer , Kelly Johnson he did things his way. KISS engineering = Keep It Simple Stupid engineering. UFO = unidentified flying object... never seen one. Study more - What experience do you have? We all started somewhere. I started when the teachers couldn't answer my simple aviation questions [the school Library was my #1 class] #### dong090909 ##### Well-Known Member Remove the folding rotors - Higher disk loaded [fans with collective pitch] on end of each wing. U-2 designer , Kelly Johnson he did things his way. KISS engineering = Keep It Simple Stupid engineering. UFO = unidentified flying object... never seen one. Study more - What experience do you have? We all started somewhere. I started when the teachers couldn't answer my simple aviation questions [the school Library was my #1 class] 1. Thank you for your patient guidance. 2. I estimate that my outlook, or the subject matter of fantasy novels is likely to cause confusion, so I will now change my way of thinking and talk about some practical issues: A. Do you think: coaxial rigid double rotors, when in the same phase, the lift difference is the smallest, B.AAK55 FARMER CRAFT, ---There is no problem of collection, when the fixed wing is flying, the rotor is just folded to reduce wind resistance ---The height of the rotor can be adjusted Is it possible to achieve: vertical lift, fixed wing flight thanks. #### raytol ##### Well-Known Member Supporting Member 5? Why the question mark on Autorotation? I've done thousands of practice and a few that saved my butt. It's what makes a helicopter what it is. A good pilot can plant a helicopter with an engine or t/r failure anywhere. and hovering isn't a bug - It's the most valuable asset a helicopter has. Rescue and long line work. big$$$ doing it.

Look at materials good

Look at weight issues good

Look at processes of manufacture Okay

If you look at why someone put a helicopter together the way they did you'll go further.

Look at a Hiller...

Look at a Bell...

Look at a Sikorsky...

Look at Robinson...

A Hughes, A Lockheed, A McCullich, A Boing, A Kamov, A Mil, Rotorway, Safari, .... etc.

Look at WHY they built their machines the way they did... They all had their philosophy behind their ideas.

Got to start somewhere - History, Available materials at the time, Power plants, Mission.
View attachment 120552

184 mph, 600 lbs empty, 1300 lbs gross, single pilot, turbine power 145 hp. 9.9 gph. 32 gal -aluminum construction. -flown -

View attachment 120553
Aerobatic - under construction - 4 blade rotor system, turbine powered, 150 hp, 52 gal fuel, honeycomb reinforced aluminum -unflown-
Is this a BD-5 helicopter? Great idea!

#### D Hillberg

##### Well-Known Member
1. Thank you for your patient guidance.
2. I estimate that my outlook, or the subject matter of fantasy novels is likely to cause confusion, so I will now change my way of thinking and talk about some practical issues:
A. Do you think: coaxial rigid double rotors, when in the same phase, the lift difference is the smallest,
B.AAK55 FARMER CRAFT,
---There is no problem of collection, when the fixed wing is flying, the rotor is just folded to reduce wind resistance
---The height of the rotor can be adjusted
Is it possible to achieve: vertical lift, fixed wing flight
thanks.

Also look up Sikorsky history on RASA S-72 = Sikorsky S-72 - Wikipedia
Stopped rotor = Sikorsky Archives | X-Wing
more = Untitled Document

Your journey has only just begun -

#### dong090909

##### Well-Known Member

Also look up Sikorsky history on RASA S-72 = Sikorsky S-72 - Wikipedia
Stopped rotor = Sikorsky Archives | X-Wing
more = Untitled Document

Your journey has only just begun -
I'm disappointed that you sidestep the core issue.
OK.
Yes, this is just the beginning.
In any case, I will keep this exchange in my heart. And thanks for your help.

This is absolutely not change I put this project to market in the form of an aviation model, or a toy, for everybody approve around the world.
It at least encourages others to imagine, why not
If I'm just copying the work of great men, it's not a patent.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
The biggest feature of this patent is that the rotor is placed up and down the fuselage, inspired by UFO: flying saucers.
I would love to exchange the theory of aircraft with you, as long as it is in the technical field,
The upper and lower rotors of the fuselage are learned from UFOs.
You do have some interesting theories.

BJC

#### dong090909

##### Well-Known Member
You do have some interesting theories.

BJC
BJC
thanks for your encouragement.
I keep reminding myself that special places can be good or stupid, so I humbly discuss
I don't insist that my theory is right, and I can be relieved if someone points out that my theory is indeed wrong. So, I seriously and sincerely welcome criticism from others. As long as it does make sense.
At the same time, I am willing to cooperate with anyone who is willing to experiment, presumably open source R&D.
thanks.
Sincerely dong090909

#### D Hillberg

##### Well-Known Member
I'm disappointed that you sidestep the core issue.
OK.
Yes, this is just the beginning.
In any case, I will keep this exchange in my heart. And thanks for your help.

This is absolutely not change I put this project to market in the form of an aviation model, or a toy, for everybody approve around the world.
It at least encourages others to imagine, why not
If I'm just copying the work of great men, it's not a patent.
The more you learn the more are the odds of your success .
Here to help if you need it.

UFO -

#### dong090909

##### Well-Known Member
The more you learn the more are the odds of your success .
Here to help if you need it.
Thanks

#### dong090909

##### Well-Known Member
UFO -

I saw it many years ago, it isn't UFO

#### AeroER

##### Well-Known Member
I saw it many years ago, it isn't UFO

How about this? The bug eye alien is visible in the cockpit!

Here's my CRW story -

Back in the 2000's I was flying the CRW simulator, fooling around with the different modes. I decided to try a landing in rotor borne lift mode, and as I was preparing to land, the sim switched from rotor borne to wing borne mode. I slammed the throttle forward and pushed the nose down just tiny bit, and had just enough translational speed and altitude remaining to fly out. The sim operators said, "that's not supposed to happen!"

The worst consequence of a crash would have been a reboot.

#### Attachments

• 1642291912589.png
597.1 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:

#### dong090909

##### Well-Known Member
Thank you so much for your touching story.
UFO more precisely: flying saucer, enlighten me:
Increase the number of rotor blades
2 discs are the rotors up and down the fuselage

#### dong090909

##### Well-Known Member
Motor for tilting propeller
The installation of the toy's rotor motor adopts a new process.

#### Attachments

• 微信图片_20220116181820.jpg
43.4 KB · Views: 16
• 微信图片_20220116181844.jpg
49.3 KB · Views: 17

#### Urquiola

##### Well-Known Member
UFO -

Nice machine!
Concept reminds a bit the NASA AD-1 'Scissor wing', having an antecedent, what not, in a German WW II project.
The X-50A Dragonfly has a round section in center of rotor, that perhaps would make the effect of shortspan wing root, high sweptback supplement that made from the Me.P-1101, and its copy Bell X-5, antecedent of F-111 'Aardvark', a flyable airplane.
There was even a Triangle shaped rotor, with moving tips, intented to take off as 'Helicopter', and act as a Delta wing planform at supersonic speeds.
Aerodynamics is same for all, materials, too, solutions for a certain flight envelope cannot be very different.
By repeating research in designs that failed, sometimes the fault is found and problem solved, but: Who has the resources, manpower, money, time, to test-retest everything?
Blassings +

#### D Hillberg

##### Well-Known Member
When you get an idea, How do you know you're the only guy who had it first?

When I was training at Bell (maintenance 212) I would sneak & hop in the simulators at lunch time, Got to meet an original Bell guy.
I'll call him Frenchi - Instead of ratting me out to management he climbed in and we enjoyed a time of screwing off and seeing how small a pad we needed for an autorotation. He said I was the only person to do a full down auto in this sim 1st try. then We landed on the tower, hangar, sheds and the top of a pine tree.

All week long at lunch time we'd have fun. Never had to reset the machine. His stories of Old Bell was great,
He said the New Bell wasn't as fun as the Old Bell...

We learn from history spoken from old wise men.

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
Before someone can improve on the helicopter, he has to understand helicopter theory. There is so much more going on there than most people---even fixed-wing pilots---realize. And it's done that way because that's what works.

There were many, many attempts that did not work, and the refining process was like panning for gold: you dump a lot of sand and gravel and water into the pan, slosh it around, and gradually spin off the stuff that isn't gold. The helicopters we see today had many evolutionary ancestors.

Status
Not open for further replies.