Front electric rotor helicopter: future of helicopter design?

[J heli]

Beyond Sikorsky X2 helicopter: world's first front electric rotor helicopter

 

Igor Sikorsky invented the tail rotor helicopter. However the tail rotor draws

some of the power away from the lift and efficiency of the primary lift rotor.

Warped Dynamics(www.warpeddynamics.com) have solved one of the core problems with helicopter efficiency. By

Simply placing a electric anti-torque fan rotor on the nose of the helicopter.

The front rotor can be powered by the auto gyro of the primary lift spinning

blades connected to a generator. Virtually

100% of the gas engine power can go into the primary lift of the helicopter.

The helicopter can have a optional mechanical pusher propeller were the tail rotor would be

for a traditional tail rotor helicopter. We believe front rotor helicopter will

be more practical, efficient and cheaper than the X2 helicopter or the X3 Eurocopter! They call their front electric rotor helicopter the "X-zero helicopter"

 

What do you think about this design? Is it the future of helicopter design?

[TomPPL]

This to me seems overly complex, also, it adds another potentially dangerous spinning part at the front. I reckon this will be the future:

http://www.coaxhelicopters.com/details.php?p_id=11

[500F]

I agree, the coaxial design seems both simpeler safer cheaper and shure as hell is better looking.

[J heli]

Do you think the coaxial design or the front electric rotor design is better as the future platform for helicopter designs?

 

Do you or others think the front electric rotor helicopter design will take away business from the coaxial designs? In which those selling coaxial helicopters dislike this new design based on fear it will take business away?

[rotorwashed]

what if you mad it a ducted fan instead. you could put a small duct on the front of the helicopter spinning a horizontally mounted fan underneath the cabin.

[Hobie]

Dude. Me thinks you are spamming the site looking for, "licensing opportunities" or website hits.

 

That said, lets say you are really trying to push the envelope for heli design. I have read your site and it doesn't look like you have done your homework with basic aerodynamics of helicopters. Build a RC model and get a proof of concept going.

[lelebebbel]

I don't get it - how is having TWO rotors that take power away from the main rotor better than having one?

 

The front rotor can be powered by the engine connected to a drive train that

connects to a generator, or by the auto gyro of the primary lift spinning

blades connected to a generator or a bank of ion lithium batteries. Virtually

100% of the gas engine power can go into the primary lift of the helicopter.

 

Ehhh... so the engine drives a generator, which drives an electric motor, which drives the front rotor? The total efficiency of this process would be 80% x 80% = about 64% at best, compared to over 90% when simply using a drive shaft and a angle gearbox, like on any normal tail rotor.. so this design would actually have to take more power away from the main rotor.

 

And lithium batteries? What is the advantage here, other than adding a few hundred pounds of weight? Batteries store far less power per weight than fuel, so why not make the turbine engine a bit bigger and add a bigger fuel tank instead?

Oh wait, they are already doing that...

Edited June 9, 2011 by lelebebbel

[lelebebbel]

Do you or others think the front electric rotor helicopter design will take away business from the coaxial designs? In which those selling coaxial helicopters dislike this new design based on fear it will take business away?

 

Is this some sort of a joke?

[jimbo2181]

It's a ridiculously horrible design and idea.

[rotorwashed]

I don't get it - how is having TWO rotors that take power away from the main rotor better than having one?

 

 

 

Ehhh... so the engine drives a generator, which drives an electric motor, which drives the front rotor? The total efficiency of this process would be 80% x 80% = about 64% at best, compared to over 90% when simply using a drive shaft and a angle gearbox, like on any normal tail rotor.. so this design would actually have to take more power away from the main rotor.

 

And lithium batteries? What is the advantage here, other than adding a few hundred pounds of weight? Batteries store far less power per weight than fuel, so why not make the turbine engine a bit bigger and add a bigger fuel tank instead?

Oh wait, they are already doing that...

 

he isnt saying that the front rotor is driven by the engine, once in forward flight the front rotor would be driven by the wind, which would in turn drive the tail rotor, freeing up power to be used for the main rotor.

 

saying that its a horrible design idea is unfair. after all, think of all the people who said the same things about many other inventions in the past, including the helicopter. at least he is being creative and trying to think outside the box instead of accepting things the way they are.

 

In my opinion, having an alternate source of power for the tail rotor is a quick and overly complicated fix for a bigger problem. I think that as the helicopter industry progresses, we will see more dual rotor technology making its way into the the civil market. but even so, operators are only going to want to use the cheapest most efficient helicopter for the job, and a new tail rotor drive system is likely to cost more then its worth.

 

Also, something to think about is that the tail rotor really isnt doing much in forward flight, most of the anti-torque is generated from the vertical stabilizer anyway. your system is a fix for a non-existent problem.

 

still though, its fun to think about. (for me anyway)

[lelebebbel]

Reading it again, it kinda sounds like something they came up with for a school project or something. If that is the case, I didn't want to discourage lateral thinking and new ideas for helicopter design. So, Jheli, before you put any more effort into this, consider:

 

1) whenever you transform one form of energy into another, you lose power. I.e.: Having an engine drive a generator that drives an electric motor that drives a propeller requires considerably more power than just having the engine drive the propeller directly, via a driveshaft. As seen on any conventional helicopter.

 

2) Having a windmilling propeller that drives a generator that drives an electric anti-torque propeller makes it worse, because it essentially adds another conversion. In forward flight, the tail fin of the helicopter along with certain aerodynamic effects of the tailrotor pretty much takes care of the main rotor torque without using a lot of power.

[AW139]

i don't see how having to power 3 rotors is more efficient than having to power 2. And now you have added much more weight to the helicopter, requiring a more powerful power plant....not efficient at all.

 

Helicopter's are great the way they are...I understand technology needs to move forward, but why not focus on making the current technology even more reliable than it already is? Making quieter more efficient rotor blades(which is already happening), improving engine reliability(even more reliable then they already are) More interior features? Sleeker more aerodynamic design? Why does there have to be a completely brand new design? Have helicopters not proved themselves worthy? Could we not continue to use the same concepts that have proved themselves useful and reliable over and over again?

 

These are just my opinions