Martin Spott wrote: > No, because the BO105 - contrary to the 'usual' Bell's for example - > has a rigid rotor. Please have a look here: > > http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html#Eurocopter
Well, that explains my confusion... I guess this just shows my helicopter ignorance. My belief had always been that such a configuration was impossible due to the bending moments along the blade, and that the articulated rotor was a necessary invention to make the idea of a "helicopter" work. Must have been propaganda. :) But the physics behind that meme is sound: there *are* very high bending moments on a rigid blade. To first approximation you're holding the whole aircraft up by the tips of the blades (the inner parts of the blade produce some lift, but not much; the outer portions are where all the force is felt). What is the rationale behind the decision to make them rigid on the BO105? The only advantage I can see is that you save a few axles and bearings, which are moving parts that can wear out. But you pay for it in extra stress cycles on the blade, so I can't see how this is a win. The articulation joints really aren't very complicated, especially compared with the cyclic control system which you have to have anyway... Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
