Zero-G

[sharky]

So Bell''s 4-bladed soft-in-plane rotor systems have more of a semi-rigid action? Would that be to say that the blades move equal and opposite in directional flight...not unlike a teetering system?

Magseal, how does EC''s 3-blade starflex behave? Is it a semi-rigid design as well? Does the starflex absorb the lead/lag or do the blades themselves hinge?

Is the flapping action of either of these systems absorbed by the elastomerics as well? Or do the blades hinge?

This is all wonderful information so far....and so for curiosity''s sake, could a rotor system say with bell''s soft-in-plane or EC''s starflex be able to tolerate 0 or negative g''s? What about sustained 0/neg g''s?

thanks again.

 

[sharky]

So Bell''s 4-bladed soft-in-plane rotor systems have more of a semi-rigid action? Would that be to say that the blades move equal and opposite in directional flight...not unlike a teetering system?

Magseal, how does EC''s 3-blade starflex behave? Is it a semi-rigid design as well? Does the starflex absorb the lead/lag or do the blades themselves hinge?

Is the flapping action of either of these systems absorbed by the elastomerics as well? Or do the blades hinge?

This is all wonderful information so far....and so for curiosity''s sake, could a rotor system say with bell''s soft-in-plane or EC''s starflex be able to tolerate 0 or negative g''s? What about sustained 0/neg g''s?

thanks again.

 

[sharky]

So Bell''s 4-bladed soft-in-plane rotor systems have more of a semi-rigid action? Would that be to say that the blades move equal and opposite in directional flight...not unlike a teetering system?

Magseal, how does EC''s 3-blade starflex behave? Is it a semi-rigid design as well? Does the starflex absorb the lead/lag or do the blades themselves hinge?

Is the flapping action of either of these systems absorbed by the elastomerics as well? Or do the blades hinge?

This is all wonderful information so far....and so for curiosity''s sake, could a rotor system say with bell''s soft-in-plane or EC''s starflex be able to tolerate 0 or negative g''s? What about sustained 0/neg g''s?

thanks again.

 

[sharky]

So Bell''s 4-bladed soft-in-plane rotor systems have more of a semi-rigid action? Would that be to say that the blades move equal and opposite in directional flight...not unlike a teetering system?

Magseal, how does EC''s 3-blade starflex behave? Is it a semi-rigid design as well? Does the starflex absorb the lead/lag or do the blades themselves hinge?

Is the flapping action of either of these systems absorbed by the elastomerics as well? Or do the blades hinge?

This is all wonderful information so far....and so for curiosity''s sake, could a rotor system say with bell''s soft-in-plane or EC''s starflex be able to tolerate 0 or negative g''s? What about sustained 0/neg g''s?

thanks again.

 

[sharky]

So Bell''s 4-bladed soft-in-plane rotor systems have more of a semi-rigid action? Would that be to say that the blades move equal and opposite in directional flight...not unlike a teetering system?

Magseal, how does EC''s 3-blade starflex behave? Is it a semi-rigid design as well? Does the starflex absorb the lead/lag or do the blades themselves hinge?

Is the flapping action of either of these systems absorbed by the elastomerics as well? Or do the blades hinge?

This is all wonderful information so far....and so for curiosity''s sake, could a rotor system say with bell''s soft-in-plane or EC''s starflex be able to tolerate 0 or negative g''s? What about sustained 0/neg g''s?

thanks again.

 

[sharky]

So Bell''s 4-bladed soft-in-plane rotor systems have more of a semi-rigid action? Would that be to say that the blades move equal and opposite in directional flight...not unlike a teetering system?

Magseal, how does EC''s 3-blade starflex behave? Is it a semi-rigid design as well? Does the starflex absorb the lead/lag or do the blades themselves hinge?

Is the flapping action of either of these systems absorbed by the elastomerics as well? Or do the blades hinge?

This is all wonderful information so far....and so for curiosity''s sake, could a rotor system say with bell''s soft-in-plane or EC''s starflex be able to tolerate 0 or negative g''s? What about sustained 0/neg g''s?

thanks again.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.

 

[CTD]

Winnie, no worries. I know that your dealings with RDM has distoted your normal views of the world, and thus, you can be easily forgiven.

Sharky, the 4-blade soft-in-plane systems behave more like fully articulated, and nothing like the teetering semi-rigid found on the two-blade Bells etc. The three-blade EC rotor heads slightly different in design, with an elastomeric spherical bearing etc., but are very are similar in function. In both systems, the function of the flapping, pitch and lead-lag hinges is performed by flexing of the yoke itself, or by elastomerics.

Although neither of these systems is as ''aerobatic'' as the rigid rotor on the BO-105, the Bell 680 rotor system - which is the experimental rotor from which the 430 system came - is very nimble, and when installed on an experimental 222 was able to loop and roll with ease.