Future Helicopters

Postby **helothere** » Mon Oct 7 2013, 09:48

The Pentagon is looking ahead several decades toward future fleets of rotorcraft -- and working now to lay the plans for getting there.

Read at c|net

Eric Hunt · Postby **Eric Hunt** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 09:13

There is a post on ...ummm...the opposition.... regarding how this coaxial ABC cannot be scaled this big - problems with drag from the rotor hub, which is associated with the separation distance between the discs, inability to make big blades of sufficient stiffness and so on. It seems that it can't go much bigger than Huey size in general. What a shame, that is such a nice picture.

Freewheel · Postby **Freewheel** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 09:41

Oh come on Eric, I remember us both being in a room (with many others) when we were told the jet ranger couldn't be improved upon, ever. The eye rolling that followed very nearly changed the earth's magnetic field.....

KNOW NUFFEN · Postby **KNOW NUFFEN** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 10:15

interesting concept... Is there any twin counter rotating rotors on any helicopter flying today apart from models ???? KN

bladepitch · Postby **bladepitch** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 10:22

mmmm. Bit ugly.

How the hell is "merica" going to fund this. Can't even take care of their current state of affairs...

212bushman · Postby **212bushman** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 12:38

Hello , has anybody seen this one. It's from Northrop - Grumman. A UAV BH407. Called a Fire Scout.
Currently on display at the Sydney Pacific 2013 Intnl Maritime Exposition. A prospective surveillance machine with upto 14 hrs endurance so I've been told.

Banjo-Kazooie · Postby **Banjo-Kazooie** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 15:35

Eric Hunt wrote:There is a post on ...ummm...the opposition.... regarding how this coaxial ABC cannot be scaled this big - problems with drag from the rotor hub, which is associated with the separation distance between the discs, inability to make big blades of sufficient stiffness and so on. It seems that it can't go much bigger than Huey size in general. What a shame, that is such a nice picture.

Yeah, they also told Henry Ford that it was impossible to make a V8 motor...

KNOW NUFFEN wrote:interesting concept... Is there any twin counter rotating rotors on any helicopter flying today apart from models ???? KN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_ro ... elicopters

Eric Hunt · Postby **Eric Hunt** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 21:20

Read this, you non-believers...

Cruise speed is driven primarily by profile drag at these velocities
~40% of rotorcraft drag is driven by hub area
Hub area is directly related to rotor spacing on a coax
Rotor spacing is a function of tip path plane deflection (flapping & coning modes)
Tip path plane deflection is driven by rotor and blade stiffnesses (in steady level flight...recall even on X2, Sikorsky never published TPP clearances under high speed maneuver loads!)
An increase in GW to FVL medium size will require a larger rotor radius to maintain disk loading and hover performance
Rotor radius and GW drives loads exponentially, thereby necessitating a reduction in stiffness with current (even experimental) materials
Reduction of stiffeness yields an necessitated increase in rotor spacing

phugoyd · Postby **phugoyd** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 22:15

http://www.industrytap.com/unmanned-helicopters-protect-troops-in-the-war-zone/6735?utm_source=EngNet&utm_campaign=cebaa36b2d-Industry_Tap_Volume_44&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dca7a88a7b-cebaa36b2d-43468421

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq5Y8cYV8Jc

Postby **Twistgrip** » Tue Oct 8 2013, 23:20

We could all end up like Tom Cruise and the bubble ship

. I see they've used a 47 cabin for the new variant, one has to think it would be a tad quicker than the old clunker!.

KNOW NUFFEN · Postby **KNOW NUFFEN** » Wed Oct 9 2013, 03:58

Thanks for the info Banjo, that Kamo KA 50 is certainly one interesting counter rotating ship .I cant understand the bit about the ejection seat though. Maybe that is the reason it didn't take off.. no pun intended....... KN

Zebt · Postby **Zebt** » Wed Oct 9 2013, 04:19

212bushman wrote:Hello , has anybody seen this one. It's from Northrop - Grumman. A UAV BH407. Called a Fire Scout.
Currently on display at the Sydney Pacific 2013 Intnl Maritime Exposition. A prospective surveillance machine with upto 14 hrs endurance so I've been told.

Yes, at the show. Had a chat with the sales chap. Very interesting stuff. Lots of other UAV's to look at there too, makes one feel rather useless. But fortunately the cost is Enormous for anything remotely sophisticated. And given what we are currently going through in legislation changes just to keep our manned fleet in the air I don't think we have anything to worry about re. UAV's for a long time.

SuperF · Postby **SuperF** » Wed Oct 9 2013, 09:54

I was just thinking about the UAVs and how everyone keeps telling me that I'm going to be replaced by a computer programmer that can do everything so much better than me, then I had a eureka moment.

We, pilots, will never be replaced by UAVs. Sure, they will get a few small jobs here and there, but it's all going to come down to money. Business revolves around money, so I did some thinking about this. The sums go something like this.

Second hand 350/407 $1-2,000,000.
Pilot, minimum wage, if he's lucky.

407 UAV, price $10,000,000 maybe? Stupid money anyway.
Computer programmer/ pilot person? minimum $100/ hr, specialized field that he's working in probably $200/ hr.

Can anyone see how that UAV is ever going to compete in most operations we do?

Banjo-Kazooie · Postby **Banjo-Kazooie** » Wed Oct 9 2013, 14:36

KNOW NUFFEN wrote:Thanks for the info Banjo, that Kamo KA 50 is certainly one interesting counter rotating ship .I cant understand the bit about the ejection seat though. Maybe that is the reason it didn't take off.. no pun intended....... KN

What's to not understand? - The canopy and rotor blades are jettisoned, after which the seats are ejected.

Zebt · Postby **Zebt** » Wed Oct 9 2013, 20:13

Can anyone see how that UAV is ever going to compete in most operations we do?[/quote]

The key to this question is when not if. I agree that cost is prohibitive at present and will be way into the future, but (and it's a big but) UAV's or some form of them will replace most of the work we do one day in the future.

Mag seal · Postby **Mag seal** » Wed Oct 9 2013, 23:52

I can see the UAVs doing all the geophysics work in the future. An autopilot will be more accurate than me flying, it can also fly longer which will be more efficient for the clients. It's only a matter of time before we as pilots will be a distant memory. I'd give it 30 years.

SuperF · Postby **SuperF** » Thu Oct 10 2013, 19:29

Yeah geophysics, other surveys like fire work, I think that they are doing now anyway. In USA they put a drone up over the last big fire.

But for flying people or loads to unprepared sites, not going to happen for a long time. I haven't seen those things production longline or short line efficiently yet, and out in remote sites, who will find the landing spot for them, and who will open the doors and keep the SLF away from the tail rotor/ main rotor?