Back on the Aluminum Mock Up. More Changes

I'm way behind on this platform. With the larger electric coax that flew ok in August 2012, I'm having issues keeping the 2 separate motors trimmed, which in turn, causes too much yaw. The larger platform will be gas powered or an even larger electric powered platform, given newer motors with less weight. However, I want to attempt "mast within a mast" and collective pitch, yet without double swash plates. Gearing will be gates pulley to 3 right angle gearbox.

Back on the rough aluminum mock up for the single rotor. Same platform concept as the coax, but the single mast was the concept that I used to patent the system. Still 2 semi rigid airframes that move within one another. I've decided to go with a different slide mech to control the airframes. Does the same as the other, but cuts weight.

Below, simple rough mock up frame for single mast. Clearly electric flying proto will be smaller. This larger mock up is just easier to work thru the issues on than smaller scale. Longitudinal lever from upper airframe will be the same, but again, different tilt control mech.

For practical purposes of testing spans of motion between airframes/points of binding, I opted for a simple spherical rod end/heim joint to use as a gimbal to join/manipulate both airframes in the mock up. Actual platform will have a more rigid gimbal. I've also decided that 3 points of attachment between the 2 airframes is better. Tweaking that on paper.

Human Interface Rotor System CG manipulation Area

I only have 2 months left in Korea. Everything is on hold until I get back to the states. I simply cannot get what I need here to continue with the scale up if the Coaxial and single mast HIR platforms.
Still need more tweaking on this post, as well as the front line trace for the urban warfare posts......still trying to get a dc jack for my laptop.

Below is a feneric view if the CG manipulation areas with regard to my airframe and that of conventional helos. More to follow later.

Rotor System Review: Integrated JM2G and HIR platforms

Some rough sketches of both my patent and that of one of my peers. I was curious to see if the two concepts could be combined into one platform. So , with the permission of my friend, Joe Moyland, I started putting the sketches below together. It combines US Patent 5,746,987 (Joe Morris, now Joe Moyland and Mr. Grass as well as my patent 8,226,6026. Although I must admit that only the "planform morphing" part of my patent is depicted here. There is obviously no "Human Interface" with the airframes and rotor system as everything is fly-by-wire. THIS POST STILL BEING CONSTRUCTED.

Above: general outline of concept

 

 

 Above: Top view, aft

 

 

Above: Aft pylon w/ RDCP (JM2G) for lateral tilt and power plant airframe for aft pitch control

 

 

Above: generic view of aft power plant airframe. Not all bracing shown. Airframe radius guided track is not complete.

 

 

Above: Intermediate power plant drive train and lateral "spherical slide" bearing assembly. Sphere is stationary and rotor mast revolves at RPM within sphere inner diameter. Functions similar to the "A" frame of a car, but a bit different. Allows power train to flex without back lash as RDCP tilts laterally.

 

 

 

Above: a closer view of the spherical slide bearing assembly. I rush the sketch, so all of the art inclined folks do  not need to tell me that the mast is not parallel to the inner diameter of the sphere...lol

Industry Etiquette: From Independent to Mid-Sized Business

Over the past few years, I have noticed that larger industries and groups that "pool" multiple industries and others in different fields of business/technology, have demonstrated poor business etiquette when dealing with people who are  independents as well as those who have a firm footing in their respective technological fields, but are still considered "small entity". Change 1: Out of courtesy, I removed the names of the respective industries that have questionable etiquette and/or integrity. Pointing fingers will never change anything. Further, change would need to come from within any organization. Poor etiquette and integrity are simply the result of poor leadership in part or as a whole within any organization. The cliche' phrase "it's only business" is foolish to use in an attempt to justify having a lack of integrity.
All are treated in a similar manner. So why is it that the larger icons of respective industries deal with everyone in this "business caliber"  this way?  Big industries have the resources, time and legal backing to keep smaller entities tied up in a legal "merry-go-round" for a long time. Some even circumnavigate patent laws to infringe the rights of intellectual property held by small entities and independents. It's difficult to understand why a company would utilize methods of poor integrity to gain control of intellectual property, but it happens more often than people think. Large industries will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to have academia institutions study a technological field, but when present with a concept that may/may not advance any given state-of-the-art technology, they resort to  "short handed dealings", spend more money tangling it up in their legal department to keep independents at bay, when much less money would be spent just buying the patent rights out right. Most independents spend years refining one concept of technology that they wish to present to larger industry in hopes of having some sort of monetary gain. However, not all of us pursue our endeavors this way. I consider myself as "unselfish" when sharing ideas and I have no desire to "toot my own horn". I cannot give all ideas away, but I have shared more than a few ideas between respective industries, DARPA, and the military. Some on the side of  DARPA & the military still deal in a manner that is "less than desirable". I was never concerned about getting "credit", but a little feedback would have been appreciated. I will continue to offer ideas when allowed to do so because for myself and my peers.... we're the "end state" user of what all of industry puts out and should have been the end state user of what industry failed to put out. So remember that your "politics" had an effect on us on the ground in Iraq, and will continue to effect us on the ground in Afghanistan and future fields of war. Good or bad, you as a member of industry have a hand in our support or our demise.
No one can say that those respective big industries are not professioanl regarding their fields of technology. This post simply questions why the poor etiquette?



http://www.rotorwashinternational.com/forum/index.php?topic=850.msg1908#msg1908

Advancement in Rotor Systems and Smart Rotor Systems

Here's a link that I found with it's origins in Canada. Aside from DARPA and a few otheres, there is a great deal of interest in "SMART" systems when regarding rotorcraft control. "SMART" and/or adaptive control is the last piece that I would like to implement into my rotor system. The Human Interface Rotor System outlined in my patent is only a physical interface regarding the pilot weight being distributed between the two planform morphing airframes and facilitaing rotor disc attitude. That final piece of utilizing SMART software to allow real time monitoring of flight control input & assist with manipulation when needed is the final goal and will bring the human interface, with regard to my airframe, to a full circle.
D. Hickman

http://www.smartrotorsystems.ca/

Stuff about Arrow Gear Company

A few pics regarding Arrow Gear. They do heat treat. All ring gears are carburized and die quenched.

Weight Shift- CG Manipulation Rotorcraft Control

Photos coutesy of Steve Remington, Collect Air: All photos fall under the respective copyrights of  either Collect Air, Cessna, and/or Seibel Helicopters. No copyright infringement was intended with this posting. All due credit goes to one or more of the above mentioned entities.
http://www.collectair.com/cessna.html

There have been a number of perspectives with regard to weight shifting control for rotorcraft/helicopters  and even more concepts designed, patented, and attempted. Some successful and some not.
One in particular is a design by Charles Seibel. Seibel, a left field pioneer with respect to rotary wing aircraft, refused to let the "main stream" prevent him from building his platforms. Even when they laughed at him.

Seibel pushed forward and started to build his rotorcraft in his attic while working for Bell in New York and finally in his basement  when he moved to Kansas. Using Ford motor parts and scraps of aluminum, he built the S-3 in three different segments so it could be removed easily. What was most intriguing to me was when it came time to test the helicopter, Seibel fly it himself, though he had no license and no flying experience.
Seibel's design used weight shifting in the the form of moving the pilot's cabin forward, aft, and laterally thereby changing the CG, causing the helicopter to move in that direction.

S-3 Moveable Cabin/Weight Shifting Control

S-3 with Cyclic Control

Though the S-3 with weight shifting could fly and be controlled, it would at times tend to want to roll over in the event of a hard landing as outlined in the Collect Air web site. I believe that is the purpose for the lateral extending struts  seen in the first S-3 photo above.

The HIR design/patent, a 15 year old idea that I brought off of the back burner, started to take shape in 2005 in simple sketches. After I ran across the Collect Air web site, I thought perhaps that I was not crazy. Though my design was not a "linear" shift in weight like that of Seibel's design, could it still fly? Seibel's platform flew. After viewing the fixed pitch restrictions of both the Airscooter and GEN H-4 helicopters, I designed the HIR platform to utilize two separate airframes that worked "within" one another, incorporating the weight of the pilot which remains distributed equally between both airframes and with the added ability to tilt and reconfigure the airframes at will to vector the rotor disc thrust, yet all at equal moments and spans of motion. I must admit that the final draft was a result of attempting to solve a chain of set backs. I wanted a tilt mast helicopter, but then how would I prevent binding of push/pull rods or tubes, i.e. maintaining collective pitch? Further, if the mast tilted, how would I keep continuous power to the tail rotor? These two problems led me to design the morphing airframes, which then led to having to solve the unintentional collective pitch change as the airframes change configuration. That led to my designing it with a canted collective pitch stick.

There will be further trouble shooting and there are still hurdles to clear before I am satisfied. The trick is to find and learned the parts of physics and mathematics that are not yet known with respect to this concept of rotorcraft