Jump to content

Fenestron vs. Traditional T/R systems


C17LM

Recommended Posts

Fenestron pros:

More efficient than traditional t/r

not sticking out there ready to chop someone

 

Fenestron cons:

more complex

more expensive

 

I'll get out Ray Prouty's aerodynamics book and try and add some more but those are the basics.

 

Doesn't the fenestron increase stability in flight (the housing acts as a vertical stabilizer), but in a crosswind landing requires more power and control inputs to maintain stability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the fenestron increase stability in flight (the housing acts as a vertical stabilizer), but in a crosswind landing requires more power and control inputs to maintain stability?

 

Well, yes, that would be true of some of the existing fenestron designs that have a large vertical tail associated with it. You could design one that did not have as much of a problem with it.... just depends on your overall mission profile of the aircraft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes, that would be true of some of the existing fenestron designs that have a large vertical tail associated with it. You could design one that did not have as much of a problem with it.... just depends on your overall mission profile of the aircraft...

 

 

The fenestron is also much quieter than traditional T/R systems, lots of authority too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok. From Prouty's helicopter aerodynamics:

 

The fenestron pros:

 

Performance benefit, the duct around the fan helps produce a low static pressure that adds to the force being generated by the fan.

Fenestron can produce the same total thrust for the same power as a tail rotor 30% larger, also by making the exit of the fan a bit divergent helps to expand the wake and the fenestron has no supporting fin blockage.

Because of this the fenestron can be up to 50% smaller than the tail rotor it is replacing (side note).... up to now Eurocopter has been using even smaller fans on the Gazelle and Dauphin designs.. Thus, they use more power which could be used by the main rotor.

 

Safety as previously noted.

 

 

 

Cons:

 

To be effective the depth of the duct should be at least 20% of the fan diameter so it is difficult to streamline the thick fan for low drag in forward flight. It also means that the airpath into and out of the fan is tortous (curved and twisted), so its efficiency is penalized. This is why the fenestron is always integrated into a generously sized cambered vertical stabilizer that can take over the job of torque compensation in forward flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fly an EC-130. T/R authority sucks especially with a crosswind or tailwind. An Astar has much better authority even compared to the Dauphin. IT may look cool but when it comes to business I prefer the real deal. TOf the three Fennestrom sircraft I have flown and have decent time in ( EC-120, EC-130, Dauphin) I have found tthat the best T/R authority of the three is the EC-120 and that thing is very underpowered as it is that it doesnt have much else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...