A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Rotorcraft
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

tail rotor power



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 16th 05, 01:54 PM
Brien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default tail rotor power

What is the % of power a tail rotor at max pedal input takes . Does a
Hughes 269 require the same tailrotor % of power to the 180 hp that a UH-1
of it's 1400hp?


  #2  
Old January 16th 05, 05:48 PM
Dave Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Brien wrote
What is the % of power a tail rotor at max pedal input takes . Does a
Hughes 269 require the same tailrotor % of power to the 180 hp that a UH-1
of it's 1400hp?


The Americans say 5 - 10%.
The Russians say 10 - 15%
Simon says " Drop the tail rotor and take rotorcraft to the next generation"



  #3  
Old January 16th 05, 08:10 PM
Jim Carriere
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Jackson wrote:

Brien wrote

What is the % of power a tail rotor at max pedal input takes . Does a
Hughes 269 require the same tailrotor % of power to the 180 hp that a UH-1
of it's 1400hp?



The Americans say 5 - 10%.
The Russians say 10 - 15%
Simon says " Drop the tail rotor and take rotorcraft to the next generation"


I like your answer.

I'd always heard between 5-15%, approximately of course.

For the most accurate answer to that question, you'd really have to
talk to the engineers at Hughes (make that Boeing-MD nowadays) and
Bell. For a general answer, I'd say yes, they are probably pretty
similar.

Besides it depends in flight regime- the vertical fin makes a
difference hovering in a crosswind, flying at any speed.

  #4  
Old January 17th 05, 12:09 AM
Steve R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hmmm, I don't really know one way or the other but I'd heard that the tail
rotor can take upwards to 25% of available power, depending on the
circumstances.

Getting rid of the tail rotor will improve power efficiency if you're
talking about a twin rotor, counterrotating system (tandom or coaxial) but
even a NOTAR consumes some power to combat torque. Whether or not it's more
efficient than a standard single main rotor / tail rotor helicopter, I have
no idea!

JMO, FWIW! :-)
Fly Safe,
Steve R.


"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
Dave Jackson wrote:

Brien wrote

What is the % of power a tail rotor at max pedal input takes . Does a
Hughes 269 require the same tailrotor % of power to the 180 hp that a
UH-1
of it's 1400hp?



The Americans say 5 - 10%.
The Russians say 10 - 15%
Simon says " Drop the tail rotor and take rotorcraft to the next
generation"


I like your answer.

I'd always heard between 5-15%, approximately of course.

For the most accurate answer to that question, you'd really have to talk
to the engineers at Hughes (make that Boeing-MD nowadays) and Bell. For a
general answer, I'd say yes, they are probably pretty similar.

Besides it depends in flight regime- the vertical fin makes a difference
hovering in a crosswind, flying at any speed.



  #5  
Old January 18th 05, 07:28 PM
Jim Burt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The NOTAR is less efficient in terms of power demand than a conventional
tail rotor, but offers other advantages. The amount of power drawn by the
tail rotor depends on the flight profile. Heavy lift operations require
huge amounts of anti-torque, which contributed to a series of failures of
Bell 42 deg. gearboxes in logging service some years ago (although the
logging operations typically exceeded flight manual limits, so you should
not consider the design defective for its original purpose). The vertical
fin does unload the tail rotor in flight, but makes it less efficient in
some hover regimes, in which "ringtail" and fenestron type systems are more
efficient.

"Steve R." wrote in message
...
Hmmm, I don't really know one way or the other but I'd heard that the tail
rotor can take upwards to 25% of available power, depending on the
circumstances.

Getting rid of the tail rotor will improve power efficiency if you're
talking about a twin rotor, counterrotating system (tandom or coaxial) but
even a NOTAR consumes some power to combat torque. Whether or not it's
more efficient than a standard single main rotor / tail rotor helicopter,
I have no idea!

JMO, FWIW! :-)
Fly Safe,
Steve R.


"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
Dave Jackson wrote:

Brien wrote

What is the % of power a tail rotor at max pedal input takes . Does a
Hughes 269 require the same tailrotor % of power to the 180 hp that a
UH-1
of it's 1400hp?


The Americans say 5 - 10%.
The Russians say 10 - 15%
Simon says " Drop the tail rotor and take rotorcraft to the next
generation"


I like your answer.

I'd always heard between 5-15%, approximately of course.

For the most accurate answer to that question, you'd really have to talk
to the engineers at Hughes (make that Boeing-MD nowadays) and Bell. For
a general answer, I'd say yes, they are probably pretty similar.

Besides it depends in flight regime- the vertical fin makes a difference
hovering in a crosswind, flying at any speed.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tail flapper failure Veeduber Home Built 2 May 22nd 04 06:52 AM
AH64 tail rotor CivetOne Rotorcraft 3 October 23rd 03 07:18 PM
Oshkosh Get together Roster - Sign in, please! Bruce E. Butts Owning 1 July 26th 03 11:34 AM
Oshkosh Get together Roster - Sign in, please! Bruce E. Butts Piloting 1 July 26th 03 11:34 AM
The prone postion for tail gunners versus turrets. The Enlightenment Military Aviation 8 July 22nd 03 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.