The Possibillity of future Gyrocopters...

MichaelHenley · 07-01-2006, 06:39 PM

This may be a bit late, but yesterday I borrowed out a June '04 copy of Popular Mechanics. On the cover was this huge monstrous gyroplane which was being toted as a super-heavylifter. There's the pic below, but the picture on the front cover shows one hauling a petrol station! It also says that they will travel at Mach speeds.

The article says that heavy-lift gyroplanes will be taking to the sky in the next decade. I think this is very unlikely. I talked the whole idea over with dad, and he said that they will probabbly guzzle fuel like nothing before them.

I was just wondering peoples opinions on this- wether any of this will get anywhere soon, etc. comments?

P.S. Talk about ugly! Even the shape of the design makes me doubt their supersonic capability!

all images from popularmechanics.com

FLYBOYJ · 07-01-2006, 07:13 PM

This has been a pipe dream for a number of years - too complex and too expensive to operate. Ever see the rotor head of a really big helicopter? An engineering marvel but a maintenance nightmare...

Tony Williams · 07-13-2006, 11:48 AM

Actually a rotor head for a gyroplane is a simple device compared with that for a helicopter - it doesn't need the complex control system as it's basically used just for lift.

This company specialises in their modern development - some interesting ideas: Groen Brothers Aviation

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-13-2006, 11:52 AM

the Fairy Rotodyne was a great looking aircraft, and i believe the biggest gyrocopter yet to fly?

trackend · 07-13-2006, 03:18 PM

I know little of rotor head design (unlike FBJ) but I would have thought to have a pay load of 2,000,000 lbs hanging from a Jesus bolt would need some super sonic materials, on the other hand maybe the set up is different these days, perhaps FBJ you can enlighten me .
Do they still use a single shaft upon which it all hangs Joe?

Tony Williams · 07-13-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ***

the Fairy Rotodyne was a great looking aircraft, and i believe the biggest gyrocopter yet to fly?

I think so, yes, and it appears to have been a technical success.

The problems which caused it to fail were related to the fact that it was intended primarily as a passenger transport, not a military one. The usual reason given is that the rotor tip ramjets created a huge amount of noise, which was considered unacceptable for people living near airports. I think that there was potentially a bigger problem, though: to have an advantage over conventional passenger planes, it would have had to operate city-centre to city-centre, not use the conventional out-of-town airports. But this would have meant acquiring land for an inner-city airport at each city, constructing the airport and all the transport infrastructure required to get to and from it etc - a huge built-in cost.

It's a pity that the British didn't see a need for such a big tactical military transport at the time, as it would have been ideal. It is technically much simpler than a helicopter (let alone a tilt-rotor like the V-22, which is an order of magnitude more complex) and has the safety benefit of two entirely different systems to keep it up in the air - the rotor, and the props+stub wing.

A couple of years ago the Groen Brothers were proposing a simple 'gyrodyne kit' consisting of a big rotor to attach to a Hercules transport!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

FLYBOYJ · 07-13-2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

Actually a rotor head for a gyroplane is a simple device compared with that for a helicopter - it doesn't need the complex control system as it's basically used just for lift.

Depending on the design the rotor and if it's going to be articulating, swash plates, linkages and other parts still require a lot of inspection, GREASE and inspection. Even though it's just "spinning," there's still a lot of stuff going on there and that's what makes it complicated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackend

I know little of rotor head design (unlike FBJ) but I would have thought to have a pay load of 2,000,000 lbs hanging from a Jesus bolt would need some super sonic materials, on the other hand maybe the set up is different these days, perhaps FBJ you can enlighten me .
Do they still use a single shaft upon which it all hangs Joe?

On the helicopters I worked on basically, yes. The head is usually splined, here's a few examples...

Chinook

Here's the Rotordyne head compliments of highway gold

The head is very a big piece of machined steel and although robust requires a lot of inspection and maintenance. A portion of the A Star's mast is actually composite...

Even without the drive mechanism they are pretty complex assemblies and even if a large gyrocopter with just a "spinning" head, there will still be a lot of maintenance and upkeep.

And we haven't even spoken about the blades or tracking!

Tony Williams · 07-14-2006, 04:15 AM

Being that a gyrodyne head has to do far less complex things than a helo head, the maintenance is likely to be significantly less - that's the comparison to be made, after all. And when you consider a CH-47 with two heads...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

FLYBOYJ · 07-14-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

Being that a gyrodyne head has to do far less complex things than a helo head, the maintenance is likely to be significantly less - that's the comparison to be made, after all. And when you consider a CH-47 with two heads.

Not necessarily - there are components of the head (where the blades attach, AKA grips) that required continual maintenance and inspection - that's my point. Again, if there is any plans to have the head articulate (pitch change), it will be just as complex as any other large helicopter rotor head (and it doesn't matter if you're talking a single head), especially if 3 or more blades are used. I've worked on helicopters for a number of years and Could tell you, helicopter or gyrodyne, if it has a rotor head, be ready to work!!

This is all an assumption, until the thing is built we are speculating on how complicated the thing is going to be, but based on what's out there (and what I seen) and current technology, the bigger the rotor head, the more "knuckle-busting."

BTW the aircraft shown in your drawing show multi-blade counter rotating masts - although an artist conception, do you realize how complicated that set up is on it's own!!!!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-14-2006, 12:30 PM

Exactly FBJ.

Even swashplates require lots I repeat lots of Grease. We have to lube ours up every 350 flight hours and the inspections on them are almost daily. I remember climbing up on my Blackhawk to go flying and I saw metal shavings in the grease coming out of the swashplate. I flew another aircraft and one of my buddies took the swashplate apart and it was basically eating itself alive.

Rotor heads are complex no matter what. By the way that is a nice drawing breaking down a Chinook Rotor head up there.

Anyhow besides the swashplate you normally have the PC rods and dampeners, etc.

Even if on a geyroplane if the the rotor is used for lift, it still requires just about the same componants of the helicopter rotor head to produce the lift. There has to some kind of pc rod (pitch control rod) because the blades at flat pitch are not producing eneogh lift to make a difference. You have to manipulate the angle of the blade to produce lift.

Therefore in all acutallity the blades of the gyroplane are really no different from a helicopter.

And you most certainly have to balance the blades otherwise the vibrations would be unbearable as well.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-14-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

This company specialises in their modern development - some interesting ideas: Groen Brothers Aviation

Based on my experience with rotory wing aircraft and working on them you have to manipulate the pitch of the blade to produce lift. The blades can not just be positioned in one position.

Therefore you need Pitch Control Rods, Control linkages, servos etc... more complicated than it seems.

FLYBOYJ · 07-14-2006, 02:08 PM

I was waiting for you to chime in there - thanks!

FLYBOYJ · 07-14-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

Actually a rotor head for a gyroplane is a simple device compared with that for a helicopter - it doesn't need the complex control system as it's basically used just for lift.

This company specialises in their modern development - some interesting ideas: Groen Brothers Aviation

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I just took a look at that site, very interesting...

Their current Hawk 4 has a rotor head very similar to a Bell 206. There's still a lot of things going on there.....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-14-2006, 07:31 PM

Actually looks pretty damn close to a 206 Jet Ranger. You have the Pitch Control Rods on either side, the spindles ataching to the mast (atleast we call them spindles on the blackhawk and they are a little more complicated that those it looks like), the balance weights above those and the pins holding the blades to the spindles. It even looks like it has a miniture version of dampeners on the sides to prevent too much lead and lag.

I might work and fly on helicopters FBJ but you have me beat far more in experience. I have to work on them quite a while longer before I reach your level. Hell you learn something every day though in this job. My theory is when you stop learning it is time to find a new job.

evangilder · 07-14-2006, 08:55 PM

Damn guys, you taught me more about helos in this thread than I ever thought about with the rotor head and main shaft. I always looked at helos with that one shaft and thought to myself "Single point of failure". After seeing the drawings of the heads, I realize just how complex they are. Amazing!