![]() |
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The reason the only aerobatic helicopters (if you can say that) are turbine
powered, is merely power. Where can you get 600 HP out of an engine that weighs less than 300lbs.? We need loads of HP and turbines deliver that. With that said, the turbine does act as a large gyro, however the rotor is about 5x stronger than the engine. It's just that the engine mounts are not made to take those loads. It's assumed that the helicopter will not normally snap around like you can get in aerobatics. That's why we have to be careful about it. "Peter Holm" wrote in message om... "nametab" wrote in message k.net... Power reaction is not such an issue for a single-shaft engine. My engine can go from 10-90% torque in one second, no problem. However, you did hit on the larger problem: Very high gyroscopic forces. Although the spinning mass is not very large, my engine turns at 43,500rpm. That's loads of gyro. I have to be very careful not to snap against the engine or I might just loose it. BTY, I fly aerobatic helicopters, so there's a larger gyroscope to deal with, but it "flies"... "Peter Ashwood-Smith C-GZRO" wrote in message om... (cut) There are actually a number of tubro powered aerobatic planes, think for example of the PT-6 trainers. Where and when do they fly? For competition aerobatics however which includes lots of gyroscopic forces, there are I believe concerns about the long shafts in those engines and the huge gyroscopic forces at work. That would limit them to sportsman stuff .. which is quite a restriction for a $1,000,000 + airplane. (cut) Because you are flying such a large gyroscope, I wonder if you might not be overestimating the gyroscopic forces produced by turboprop engines. Because in distiction to what Peter Ashwood-Smith is saying above, small turboprop motors only appear to have a long rotor shaft. In reality they have two shafts mounted separately one behind the other: The (single) rotor shaft and the power shaft (with the reduction gears in front of the latter). I can really speak competently only about model aircraft turboprops. And the weight ratio of rotor shaft weight/total aircraft weight should be at least equal if not higher in model aircraft than in real aircraft. Besides, microturbine rotor shafts rotate at speeds typically between 120.000 and 200.000 rpm. And in model aircraft, the guroscopic forces from the rotor shaft are considered to be negligible. I donīt see how this could be due to some sort of scaling effect. So in order to put an end to all of this speculation, I think what would really be needed here is the testimony of a pilot who has actually flown aerobatics with a turboprop plane. One additional question for you out of interest: Do you believe that aerobatic turboshaft helicopters are relatively more abundant than aerobatic turboprop planes? And if yes, why would that be so? After all, this appears to be contradictory since the pilot of an aerobatic turboshaft helicopter ought to have to deal with much higher gyroscopic forces than the pilot of an aerobatic turboprop plane. Peter H. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RIAT and Video | Patrouilles du Monde | Aerobatics | 0 | July 10th 04 06:18 PM |