Which is safer, eighteen rotors with one moving part each or one rotor with 58 moving parts? Loose 4 parts in the first case and you are probably still flying. Loose 4 in the second and it is auger time. Just a thought.ladajo wrote: I am inclined to apply my general rule: Too many moving parts creates too many problems to manage.
The Electric Decennoctirotor (or Decennovirotor)
If they are not pitch control then that will severely limit performance.A typical quadrotor is also free of the weird rotor interaction on a typical helicopter. The point is that the blades are simple propellers and don't need the continuously changing pitch. Thus the control system should be much friendlier.
That still does not address interference. Even Quadrotors are comparitively widely seperated, as well as perform better when shrouded.
I am not sure what you are arguing. I am not saying it will not fly. I am saying it does not really benefit, and its operating envelop may well be largely restrictive when compared to conventional in use systems. Simpler is better for a reason. This thing is not simple.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Sometimes achieving desirable properties in a complex environment requires complexity. On the other hand, a single rotor directly driven (or single-gear) by an electric motor is pretty much as simple as it gets. Arranging 18 of those in a symmetrical pattern is hardly the pinnacle of complexity.
Sure there will be interference, but whether that's a manageable problem or a deal-breaker will have to be tested with a prototype.
One benefit of small rotors is faster response time when dynamically adjusting thrust/torque. That enables better stability and maneuverability (with the right sensors and software).
Sure there will be interference, but whether that's a manageable problem or a deal-breaker will have to be tested with a prototype.
One benefit of small rotors is faster response time when dynamically adjusting thrust/torque. That enables better stability and maneuverability (with the right sensors and software).
-
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Ducted fans are also quieter and more efficient, and NASA has a nifty fan design with a superconducting motor built into the ducting. All primed and waiting for a useful size electrical power source.DeltaV wrote:Hitting a tree with a blade is not necessarily fatal (I like ducted fans better in this regard).
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Re:
But redundancy is always appreciated.paperburn1 wrote:I work in the aviation field and simpler is always better.ladajo wrote: I am inclined to apply my general rule: Too many moving parts creates too many problems to manage.
!"
-
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Re: The Electric Decennoctirotor (or Decennovirotor)
Fun but still, one wonders what they think it's good for. It can't possibly have a useful range. It's not great to be green when you're useless.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: The Electric Decennoctirotor (or Decennovirotor)
I understand it can break down int a small package and be easily reassembled later.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: The Electric Decennoctirotor (or Decennovirotor)
For VTOL safety, at least eight is great.
Moller Autovolantor
Zee.Aero
Moller Autovolantor
Zee.Aero