http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_XH-51
Research into rigid rotor systems circa the 1960s. Almost all new design helicopters since the late 90s now have rigid systems.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Little known / experimental aircraft
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_XH-51
Research into rigid rotor systems circa the 1960s. Almost all new design helicopters since the late 90s now have rigid systems.
The question is: is there a physical limitation on the size of a rigid rotor? I do not know of any rigid rotor systems over 20,000 lbs.
UH-1Y/AH-1Z are rigid I believe. They're up there size wise.
samb
Active Member
The F-16XL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL
Submitted as part of the AF's "Enhanced Tactical Fighter" contest to replace the F-111, it lost out to the F-15E Strike Eagle. The F-16XL added hardpoints to the wings, and significantly changed the performance characteristics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL
Submitted as part of the AF's "Enhanced Tactical Fighter" contest to replace the F-111, it lost out to the F-15E Strike Eagle. The F-16XL added hardpoints to the wings, and significantly changed the performance characteristics.
favorite airplane of all time......and agreed. Though I think the ballsiest test flight in the history of the world might have been STS-1/Young/Crippen. Once those SRB's lit, they either made it to wheel stop at the end, or were dead. I suppose the same could be said for every other shuttle crew as well, but it took some real balls to just strap in and do the full meal deal without any real incremental testing, aside from the approach/landing tests.
I can't remember if Young or Crippen was the one who was interviewed about the ejection decision. Apparently anytime they were in the seat's envelope, they would have been ejecting through the exhaust of the SRBs, so words to the more tactful effect of "Fuck no."
The NASA line for why they removed the "Bang" seats was the trepidation of having explosives in the crew compartment............although, from talking to astronauts during my time in Houston, the real reason was there was no way to eject a full crew of 5. After Challenger, they put in a pole that extended out of the hatch that the crew would attach to and slide clear of the orbiter stack and deploy chutes...........nobody, including the designer of the system thought it would work, but it made the public feel better.
The pole was only meant to work if the orbiter jettisoned the SRBs and ET, and was flown into a nice, gentile glide at ~200 knots. Even if you managed to get into the envelope after a launch failure (unlikely), you would still have to slide down the pole and pray that you have enough clearance under(!) the wing. I think I would take my chances ditching...
And then there's the Return to Launch Site Abort, what John Young called "continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God." FTA:
That flight profile looks like something straight out of Kerbal Space Program.
I love the reference!