![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rob Bulaga wrote:
I know I'm opening myself up to all sorts of flaming, but I designed, built and flew Trek's Solotrek and Springtail aircraft. I think I can shed some light on your discussion about the "jetpack's" stability. All hovering aircraft are statically unstable. Technical nit (not a flame I hope): all lighter-than-air aircraft, many of which are in the subset of hovering aircraft, are statically stable. At least so far as I understand these things. The stability of a high-rotor vs. a low-rotor is a dynamic effect, analogous to dihedral on a high-wing vs. low-wing aircraft. It does nothing to promote static (hovering) stability. Hovering these machines is like trying to stand on a large beachball in the middle of a swimming pool. Essentially, you're balancing on a column of air. There is no pendulum effect. When the machine tilts, the force vectors (columns of air) tilt too. Their relative position to the c.g. is unchanged. There is no "righting" force. Now supposing the engine fails - at that point, which in general is easier to make safer: the high rotor or the low rotor aircraft? (See my reply to Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe's post on the pendulum fallacy for my reasoning, such as it is, on why I suspect high rotor is probably safer than low rotor.) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Jim Logajan wrote: Rob Bulaga wrote: I know I'm opening myself up to all sorts of flaming, but I designed, built and flew Trek's Solotrek and Springtail aircraft. I think I can shed some light on your discussion about the "jetpack's" stability. All hovering aircraft are statically unstable. Technical nit (not a flame I hope): all lighter-than-air aircraft, many of which are in the subset of hovering aircraft, are statically stable. At least so far as I understand these things. The stability of a high-rotor vs. a low-rotor is a dynamic effect, analogous to dihedral on a high-wing vs. low-wing aircraft. It does nothing to promote static (hovering) stability. Hovering these machines is like trying to stand on a large beachball in the middle of a swimming pool. Essentially, you're balancing on a column of air. There is no pendulum effect. When the machine tilts, the force vectors (columns of air) tilt too. Their relative position to the c.g. is unchanged. There is no "righting" force. Now supposing the engine fails - at that point, which in general is easier to make safer: the high rotor or the low rotor aircraft? (See my reply to Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe's post on the pendulum fallacy for my reasoning, such as it is, on why I suspect high rotor is probably safer than low rotor.) Power off is definitely a different story. With power on, the thrust vector is always aligned with the vehicle and therefore acts through the c.g. regardless of the aircraft's attitude. With power off, the drag through the rotor acts parallel to the direction of travel, which is down. So, with an overhead rotor, when the vehicle tilts right, the drag vector is shifted to the right also (relative to the c.g.), creating a left rolling moment, making the aircraft correct itself. With a low rotor, when the vehicle tilts right, the drag vector is shifted to the left, creating a right rolling moment, making the aircraft want to flip over. Either way, in a jetpack-like aircraft you've just become a giant lawn dart. You're also right, I had neglected to consider lighter-than-air aircraft in my statements.. ![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Logajan" wrote in message ... ... Now supposing the engine fails - at that point, which in general is easier to make safer: the high rotor or the low rotor aircraft? Ducted fans "jet packs" don't autorotate - they fall like a brick (at least stuff like the one that was flown at Oshkosh). So it really doesn't matter, eh? :-) (yes, they have / plan to have a balistic 'chute to slow the brick down from what I've read) Looking back up this thread a ways to review the original claim: "It's supposed to be fairly stable because the thrust reaction point is well above the CG, so there is a strong pendulum effect. They claim it's better than a helicopter." Complete and utter bull droppings. -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P-61 belly gun pack | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 0 | March 2nd 07 09:19 AM |
Power pack for camping? | LincTex | General Aviation | 2 | June 26th 06 12:40 PM |
Jet pack | Bob C | Soaring | 14 | January 12th 06 07:11 PM |
Jet pack | Bob C | Soaring | 0 | January 10th 06 07:21 AM |
Pack guns in your little airplane | Rich S. | Home Built | 17 | July 13th 03 05:45 PM |