Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.
Moderators: Michelle, Scrupulous, Roger Brown, citizen
Re: A New Flying Machine
by jlawren3 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:47 pm
-
jlawren3 - White Belt
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:36 am
Hi Dave,
You seem to have been responding to someone else's post. I am not following what you are talking about.
J. Lawrence
You seem to have been responding to someone else's post. I am not following what you are talking about.
J. Lawrence
Re: A New Flying Machine
by davh12 » Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:14 am
- davh12
- White Belt
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:02 am
Jlawrence,
Sorry about that. I had posted a my web site in the patent threads and got side tracked when I seen your post. Got off thinking about rotorcraft and assumed the post was in your thread. Anyway, to clarify, I have a patent application in for a rotor system that I designed. It's cleared the pre-exam and classification. Just waiting. It's a bit outside the box, but that is where I like to think. It was reviewed by DARPA who said the "worked outlined had merit" but they did not want to move on it because they thought the pay off was not high enough for DOD. Bell Helicopter is looking at it now.....still waiting. It's frustrating because the industry does not seem to pay much attention to independents and then some of them are guilty of short handed dealings with small entities. I have several other different rotor systems, 3 of which are ready for the patent office, but I wanted to see how this one went because of those maint. fees.
www.envisionhelicopters.com
Regards,
Dave
Sorry about that. I had posted a my web site in the patent threads and got side tracked when I seen your post. Got off thinking about rotorcraft and assumed the post was in your thread. Anyway, to clarify, I have a patent application in for a rotor system that I designed. It's cleared the pre-exam and classification. Just waiting. It's a bit outside the box, but that is where I like to think. It was reviewed by DARPA who said the "worked outlined had merit" but they did not want to move on it because they thought the pay off was not high enough for DOD. Bell Helicopter is looking at it now.....still waiting. It's frustrating because the industry does not seem to pay much attention to independents and then some of them are guilty of short handed dealings with small entities. I have several other different rotor systems, 3 of which are ready for the patent office, but I wanted to see how this one went because of those maint. fees.
www.envisionhelicopters.com
Regards,
Dave
Re: A New Flying Machine
by jlawren3 » Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:30 am
-
jlawren3 - White Belt
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:36 am
davh12,
I think that it is a good idea to propose, as I think you have, that control in helicopters can be obtained by building them with masts which can be tilted in any direction instead of implementing full cyclic pitch control for the rotor blades. One could argue that a universal joint is a lot less expensive that a swashplate mechanism. I presume that the rotor would still have pitch control, right?
The next step in a progression is to put the engine on gimbals and let it tilt with the mast.
The next step after that is to just move a heavy weight around in the craft to accomplish direction control.
j. lawrence
I think that it is a good idea to propose, as I think you have, that control in helicopters can be obtained by building them with masts which can be tilted in any direction instead of implementing full cyclic pitch control for the rotor blades. One could argue that a universal joint is a lot less expensive that a swashplate mechanism. I presume that the rotor would still have pitch control, right?
The next step in a progression is to put the engine on gimbals and let it tilt with the mast.
The next step after that is to just move a heavy weight around in the craft to accomplish direction control.
j. lawrence
Re: A New Flying Machine
by davh12 » Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:02 am
- davh12
- White Belt
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:02 am
Jlawrence,
Yes, it will still maintain collective pitch with the use of a thrust bearing assembly. The airframe is seperated into 2 different frames and joined with a gimbal or spherical bearing assembly. I drew up both configurations to see which is better. All of the rotor system, mast/reduction drive, power plant, and tail boom tilt as one unit with the pilot seat as the seat is attached to both airframes with spherical bearings. The collective pitch stick must be canted over the left leg of the pilot to prevent unwanted change in collective pitch during forward/aft tilting. The weight of the pilot facilitates positive control when tilting the upper airframe. The mechanical ability to perform auto-rotation is a must. The GEN H4 and Airscooter are fixed pitch rotorcraft....bad idea even though they fly well with the GEN H4 using a gimbal and the Airscooter using a CV joint. The GEN H4 at least can land safely on 2 of the 4 power plants. In my rotor design, the "Human Interface" or pilot moving with the rotor system as well the gimbaled airframes are my efforts to have tilt mast control for directional flight and maintaining collective pitch. Charles Siebel designed, built and flew a weight shift helo and in his airframe the cockpit slide forward, aft, etc thereby changining the CG for directional control. One draw back was it had a tendency to flip over in a low hover when the CG was manipulated a certain way. Not sure why, but he negated this result by adding "training wheels" for lack of a better phrase. They were struts that extended out to the flanks of the airframe. It did the trick. With my design I'm trying to "flex" the CG in conjunction with tilting the mast rather than a linear shift in weight. The first phase is a simple airframe that only tilts forward/aft to verify the validity of mechanical morphing airframes. There will be a slight drift in a hover caused from the thrust of the tail rotor as there will not be lateral tilt in the 1st configuration. The 2nd phase is a larger gas powered airframe that will tilt laterally as well as forward/aft.
Stay in touch. I'm really intrigued by your design.
Regards,
Dave
Yes, it will still maintain collective pitch with the use of a thrust bearing assembly. The airframe is seperated into 2 different frames and joined with a gimbal or spherical bearing assembly. I drew up both configurations to see which is better. All of the rotor system, mast/reduction drive, power plant, and tail boom tilt as one unit with the pilot seat as the seat is attached to both airframes with spherical bearings. The collective pitch stick must be canted over the left leg of the pilot to prevent unwanted change in collective pitch during forward/aft tilting. The weight of the pilot facilitates positive control when tilting the upper airframe. The mechanical ability to perform auto-rotation is a must. The GEN H4 and Airscooter are fixed pitch rotorcraft....bad idea even though they fly well with the GEN H4 using a gimbal and the Airscooter using a CV joint. The GEN H4 at least can land safely on 2 of the 4 power plants. In my rotor design, the "Human Interface" or pilot moving with the rotor system as well the gimbaled airframes are my efforts to have tilt mast control for directional flight and maintaining collective pitch. Charles Siebel designed, built and flew a weight shift helo and in his airframe the cockpit slide forward, aft, etc thereby changining the CG for directional control. One draw back was it had a tendency to flip over in a low hover when the CG was manipulated a certain way. Not sure why, but he negated this result by adding "training wheels" for lack of a better phrase. They were struts that extended out to the flanks of the airframe. It did the trick. With my design I'm trying to "flex" the CG in conjunction with tilting the mast rather than a linear shift in weight. The first phase is a simple airframe that only tilts forward/aft to verify the validity of mechanical morphing airframes. There will be a slight drift in a hover caused from the thrust of the tail rotor as there will not be lateral tilt in the 1st configuration. The 2nd phase is a larger gas powered airframe that will tilt laterally as well as forward/aft.
Stay in touch. I'm really intrigued by your design.
Regards,
Dave
14 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2