8 hours ago
(Edited 8 hours ago by Jared Hartzell.)
@Graeme Smith A T-bar would likely work in this case. However, I know that myself and many other pilots do not like it over the standard configuration. It just feels weird, even after hundreds of hours flying one and going back to a standard cyclic, it feels so much better.
@Lyle Swallows I'm curious about what it is people are doing with the cyclic fork to increase lateral output travel? I don't think it's necessary for Rotorways, we should maintain as close to a centered CG as possible with our limited cyclic authority for safety reasons and it also puts less stress on our components the closer to center we are in a hover. We have what feels like half the authority of a typical helicopter, which is why it's "easy" to hover but this has the side-effect of being far more risky to fly at the edges of the envelope or hover in heavy winds, compared to other small helicopters. You can also visualize this by comparing W&B charts. I might do a lengthy write-up on this matter eventually, for public info. If there's one major flight characteristic change I could make with Rotorway, I'd find a reasonable solution to increase cyclic authority and get rid of the ballast weight necessity (accomplished via a 3-bladed rotor system, to keep the low profile and now you also don't have to worry about mast bumping—only tail chops)... Of course, this would require more power to drive and beefing up the mast/everything else rotor-related significantly, as it will now be subject to higher side loads rather than teetering... Resulting in higher empty weight and less useful load, so now we go down a rabbit hole of major airframe modifications and at the end of the day, it seems better to design a completely new helicopter.
@Lyle Swallows I'm curious about what it is people are doing with the cyclic fork to increase lateral output travel? I don't think it's necessary for Rotorways, we should maintain as close to a centered CG as possible with our limited cyclic authority for safety reasons and it also puts less stress on our components the closer to center we are in a hover. We have what feels like half the authority of a typical helicopter, which is why it's "easy" to hover but this has the side-effect of being far more risky to fly at the edges of the envelope or hover in heavy winds, compared to other small helicopters. You can also visualize this by comparing W&B charts. I might do a lengthy write-up on this matter eventually, for public info. If there's one major flight characteristic change I could make with Rotorway, I'd find a reasonable solution to increase cyclic authority and get rid of the ballast weight necessity (accomplished via a 3-bladed rotor system, to keep the low profile and now you also don't have to worry about mast bumping—only tail chops)... Of course, this would require more power to drive and beefing up the mast/everything else rotor-related significantly, as it will now be subject to higher side loads rather than teetering... Resulting in higher empty weight and less useful load, so now we go down a rabbit hole of major airframe modifications and at the end of the day, it seems better to design a completely new helicopter.