Another Look at 1930's Cyclogyro Plane Design 142
trogador writes to mention that a group of researchers is taking another swing at the idea of a cyclogyro design for a UAV. Even though the cyclogyro design was invented in the 1930's there are no records of a successful flight. "Cyclogyros have the potential to be highly maneuverable flying robots due to their method of operation, making them potentially more suitable for complex tasks than helicopters and other micro air vehicles (MAVs) with less maneuverability. The biggest challenge in designing the cyclogyros is varying the angle of attack of the rotating wings. This ability would enable the plan to change altitude, hover, and fly in reverse. To achieve this quick angle variation, the researchers introduced an eccentric (rotational) point in addition to a rotational point connected to a motor."
Same fuel consumption as helicopters (Score:3, Informative)
Changing the angle of attack of each foil in the wing for this aircraft is no doubt complex, but even helicopters have this quite complex cyclic pitch/total pitch changing mechanisms. Given the advancement in materials and electrical actuators, it is possible that the time has come for a horizontal axis rotating wing aircraft.
May be this craft will transition from hover to flight with locked wings more easily and more stably than that boondongle from Fort Worth, V22 Osprey. Thus for the long haul you get the speed and efficiency of the fixed wing aircraft. But you get hover ability too. The price you pay is to haul a larger powerplant all the while. But still it might beat V22.
Re:Goldberg to the Rescue... (Score:4, Informative)
For that matter, a large-scale model would be a little scary to be around during takeoff and landing. I've done hover loads on a Huey (climbing in while it's hovering about 3 feet off the ground) and it still feels like the rotor's about to take your head off. Not to mention how it blows dust and gravel everywhere. This thing would be like a whirling death machine.
Still, for a small, agile robotic observation platform, I can see where it'd be useful. But with several decades of experience with helicopters behind us, I doubt it's going to happen unless there are some VERY compelling performance differences.
Re:Seeing as the link to TFA is dead ... (Score:2, Informative)
and here's another, a mirror of the original article.
Re:Seeing as the link to TFA is dead ... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/cyclogyro/cyclogyro.htm [pipex.com]
Re:Like a helicopter? (Score:5, Informative)
A different link with Video! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gyroplanes today. (Score:3, Informative)
An autogyro, however, uses a propeller, just like a fixed-winged prop-driven aircraft, to generate thrust. The rotary wings are on the top of the craft and are _not_ driven by the engine. They are in "autorotation", which means they rotate because of the other stuff going on around them (movement relative to air d/t thrust, etc). This autorotation (one-directional clutch) generates lift.
They are very different aircraft. The autogyro / gyroplane is well known and understood. The cyclogyro, OTOH, is a bit of an odd design. It would be interesting to see one work.
Re:Like a helicopter? (Score:3, Informative)
Why does it not generate lift in all directions? The Lift is always perpendicular to the blade/wing surface that is true. But the magnitude of the Lift depends on the angle of attack. So when the blade is in a position where you don't want lift, you can change the angle of attack and make it zero. You do it while you are swimming. Imagine the breast stroke. To move forward you have the palm pushing water back. Then you move your arms and bring it forward, but keep the palm cutting through the water without creating any force by pushing water forward. Same thing but you need to do it using a mechanism to keep the angle of attack the precisely right.
Re:Same fuel consumption as helicopters (Score:3, Informative)
The current V-22 is a cargo plane more or less, it's designed to quickly and efficiently drop people or cargo where needed. It's not supposed to stay around and shoot at the enemy, most likely trying to fight back will just make it a much better target (and helicopters in general are easy target).
Re:Flying through its own downwash = bad. (Score:2, Informative)