|
|||||
| Login | Contact us | |
||
|
Why were compound helicopters not successful ?Wrote for the Helicopter History Site by David Gibbings This question is quite a debate. First, Why compound? and the answer is of course to achieve higher speeds by providing extra thrust. But with the higher speeds come the problems of retreating blade stall and increased rotor stress. Generally, the way around this has been to offload the rotor by adding a wing. However you immediately pay a price in that you degrade the hover performance. Even with compounding, you are unlikely to achieve cruising speeds higher than 450kph, which can be achieved by fixed wing much more economically, and in any case conventional helicopters can already fly at speeds of 300kph without difficulty. The strength of the helicopter lies in its ability to hover efficiently, so to interfere with that and add the complexity which compounding is bound to introduce, must call for a good reason. To say that compounds have not been successful is not strictly true. The Fairey Rotodyne achieved all its technical targets, but it must be admitted that it was expensive. The Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne demonstrated high manoeouverability and was capable of nearly 400kph. The
There are roles where compounding looks attractive: Personally, I do not think the age of the compound is with us yet, but as technology progresses there may yet be a break through. Continue with the following articles
|
![]() |
|||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
|
Helicopter History Site -
www.helis.com - Online since 1997
-
Designed for Firefox @ 1024x768 -
Privacy Statement
This page downloaded 07 Nov 2009 20:23:54 MST |