Is Bell testing a multi-fenestron?
such a crappy video to tell, but perhaps its just camouflage painting techniques so that you have trouble telling the design from a distance as most auto manufacturers do.
I cant see 4 small fans being anywhere near efficient to carry out the task required.
I cant see 4 small fans being anywhere near efficient to carry out the task required.
guess I was wrong, and it's too early for april fools day
https://www.verticalmag.com/news/bel...eOFkXLR7vvPFp0
https://www.verticalmag.com/news/bel...eOFkXLR7vvPFp0
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 20th Feb 2020 at 00:42. Reason: Add YouTube
Indeed. I can't imagine any benefit but can think of several detractions for this idea. 4 fans have 4 times as many parts to maintain. Small fans have to spin faster than large fans so are noisy and stressed. 4 fans mean 4 times the risk of something failing and high speed moving parts failing is very dangerous.
Much fewer parts, especially moving parts, and possible redundant operation. Losing a singe motor is not necessarily a catastrophe. I have no idea how the number might work out for such a drive system but it doesn't seem completely ridiculous anymore. If it were possible to get rid of variable pitch blades then such a system would be even more attractive, however that may be straying into the ridiculous
Google for -- helicopter electric tail rotor
Helicopter Electric Tail Rotor
"to meet the requirements of an electric tail rotor drive for the Bell 206A/B helicopter as part of a recent Navy SBIR Phase I Award. "
https://www.navysbir.com/13_1/171.htm
"Bell 206 helicopter ... The drive system is estimated to add 7 to 9 kg to the vehicle while increasing vehicle efficiency, reliability, flyability, and operational performance"
As mindsweeper alluded to if they are electric many of these objections turn into advantages.
Much fewer parts, especially moving parts, and possible redundant operation. Losing a singe motor is not necessarily a catastrophe. I have no idea how the number might work out for such a drive system but it doesn't seem completely ridiculous anymore. If it were possible to get rid of variable pitch blades then such a system would be even more attractive, however that may be straying into the ridiculous
Much fewer parts, especially moving parts, and possible redundant operation. Losing a singe motor is not necessarily a catastrophe. I have no idea how the number might work out for such a drive system but it doesn't seem completely ridiculous anymore. If it were possible to get rid of variable pitch blades then such a system would be even more attractive, however that may be straying into the ridiculous
“In a nutshell, we removed all of the conventional mechanical anti-torque components — which is gearboxes, driveshafts and tail rotor hub and blades — and replaced it with four electric motors and fans,” Eric Sinusas, program director of light aircraft at Bell, told Vertical. “They are fixed-pitch blades and they’re changing rpm constantly.”
In forward flight at speed, they might even be able to turn them off?
How much bigger is the generator to run them? How long can the battery run them if Gen stops? Total electric failure might be a worry...
How much bigger is the generator to run them? How long can the battery run them if Gen stops? Total electric failure might be a worry...
Thanks,
I was a while writing my post and did not re-visit to see if there were relevant updates:-)
Thing is, if an Electric Transmission works for the tail rotor then it will surely work for that other even peskier rotor?
Electric tail rotor is a dead end since if the main rotor is electrified similarly there is no need for a tail rotor at all. Of course Bell and Airbus are on the case. e.g. see Bell Nexus
I was a while writing my post and did not re-visit to see if there were relevant updates:-)
Thing is, if an Electric Transmission works for the tail rotor then it will surely work for that other even peskier rotor?
Electric tail rotor is a dead end since if the main rotor is electrified similarly there is no need for a tail rotor at all. Of course Bell and Airbus are on the case. e.g. see Bell Nexus
if the main rotor is electrified similarly there is no need for a tail rotor at all.
The only way around it was like the Djinn, using jet reaction motors on each blade tip. Interesting idea, but horrendously noisy.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: POLAND
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why generator schould stop? Generator is continously powered from main gearbox. I like this idea and I see many profits from this design.
Last edited by RichiRich; 20th Feb 2020 at 06:28.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that there would also be more engine power available to drive the main rotor if not having to send it down the back with the associated loses. When I first read the thread I wondered if they would shut down one or multiple/all of the fans in the cruise. I don't like it visually but guess its an idea that is inevitable given the advances in electric motors, the multiple fans would provide redundancy. And I agree with Charles, main rotor will require anti-torque
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: POLAND
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting points covered such that it can be turned off in cruise, it can be quieter, etc. It could even be turned off with skids on ground, collective fully down and with mains turning for that extra safety. What I'd like to know is how authoritative is it over the original one, especially with a gusting wind abeam. Being fixed pitch I guess they can spin the motors in reverse if the anti-torque ain't enough. Being electric also makes it susceptible to the water ingress and will need extra environmental testing.
I guess you don't even a long tail anymore and just have a stubby tail with 2 of these things either side of the stabiliser. Computer controlled heading would also a doddle to install.
Having said all that I'm still not convinced.
I guess you don't even a long tail anymore and just have a stubby tail with 2 of these things either side of the stabiliser. Computer controlled heading would also a doddle to install.
Having said all that I'm still not convinced.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting points covered such that it can be turned off in cruise, it can be quieter, etc. It could even be turned off with skids on ground, collective fully down and with mains turning for that extra safety. What I'd like to know is how authoritative is it over the original one, especially with a gusting wind abeam. Being fixed pitch I guess they can spin the motors in reverse if the anti-torque ain't enough. Being electric also makes it susceptible to the water ingress and will need extra environmental testing.
I guess you don't even a long tail anymore and just have a stubby tail with 2 of these things either side of the stabiliser. Computer controlled heading would also a doddle to install.
Having said all that I'm still not convinced.
I guess you don't even a long tail anymore and just have a stubby tail with 2 of these things either side of the stabiliser. Computer controlled heading would also a doddle to install.
Having said all that I'm still not convinced.
Would be interested to understand the difference in weight and CoG for this experimental configuration and what the increased surface area does to handling.
A fly by wire tail rotor system does allow for some interesting options for improved stability.
Bell could be onto a good idea, though it could look a bit sexier.
Still, not as fugly as fenestron
A fly by wire tail rotor system does allow for some interesting options for improved stability.
Bell could be onto a good idea, though it could look a bit sexier.
Still, not as fugly as fenestron
Last edited by Bell_ringer; 20th Feb 2020 at 09:41. Reason: bad spelling