Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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, [...] Bending is far not such an issue with the rotor blade. Most of the probable bending forces are compensated by huge centrifugal forces. When you look at the rotor blades of a helicopter standing on the ground then you'll realize that these blades are absolutely unqualified to bear bending forces :-) http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Halo/2052.html > 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, [...] The first is correct, the latter is not (see above). Pilots love this helicopter because of his outstanding manouverability. It's even capable of doing serious aerobatic - up to inverted flying (AFAIR with a modified gear box lubrication), Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
