From: spike66 (spike66@ATTBI.com)
Date: Fri Mar 29 2002 - 16:55:41 MST
>
>
>spike66new wrote:
>
>>There is a mind blowing article in the March 2002 issue of Smithsonian
>>Air and Space. Marti Sarigul-Klijn describes a harrowing Roton test
>>flight.
>>
>Doug Jones wrote: I'm
>not sure that the vibration was due to the energetic rotor vortex cores
>hitting the airframe;
>
I wondered about that. How do they figure the rotor vortex cores would
even get
that far inboard to hit the airframe?
> other possibilities were asymmetrical thrust
>output from the tip thrusters (there was no flow spreader at the rotor
>hub),
>
That seems like a much better explanation, or some kinda Von Karmen
flow separation. Helicopters are difficult things aerodynamically.
> or the peroxide free surfaces in the lines in the rotors could
>have been at different heights, unbalancing the rotors.
>
That seems like a still better explanation, assuming the vibration was
proportional to the rotation rate of the rotor. The rotor had a non-zero
product of interia in the plane of rotation.
>The autorotating Roton would have been a pretty poor glider;
>...Winged vehicles look mighty good in comparison
>these days...
>
Oy vey, yes. The biggest problem I saw with it was transitioning from
rentry speed to the speed at which you could deploy the rotors, without
tearing the thing apart. Cool idea tho. I hope we eventually see a
throw-away rotary rocket (pressurized by rotation at launch without
the scary reentry system.) spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:08 MST