cartercopters.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Nevah been done befo' by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 05:34 · Score: 0 · on Hybrid RotorWing Design Transitions From Fixed To Rotary Wing Mid-Flight

This guys built a much prettier chopper-airplane hybrid vehicle.

They assembled it in my hometown and I got to watch it fly in person.

Disc-Rotor vs. Slowed Rotor? by fgouget · 2011-12-16 07:14 · Score: 2 · on The Future of Battle Tech

I wonder what advantages a disc-rotor helicopter has over a slowed-rotor helicopter.

Re:Flying Cars Energy Hogs By Nature by knutkracker · 2010-04-17 10:56 · Score: 2, Interesting · on At Last, Flying Cars?

A fuel-efficient prop-driven VTOL looks something like the Cartercopter. Basically a plane-autogyro hybrid so you get the fuel efficiency and speed of a plane along with (almost) vertical takeoff.

The rotor gets spun up to high revs with heavy counterweights at either end whilst on the ground, then the power is disconnected and transferred to the rear propellor. Increasing the collective sharply on the main rotor causes a jump takeoff and the rotor acts as a wing at cruising speed. Neat!

When the technology matures, this could be a very common mode of transit as they're apparently very easy to fly, but getting costs down to 'flying car' level would be tricky as they look like being half a million a piece.

Re:Autogyro by WolfWithoutAClause · 2008-11-14 16:20 · Score: 1 · on Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff

Cartercopter.

Much faster than a helicopter, twice as efficient as a helicopter. Takes off/lands in a postage stamp.

Hub & spoke vs switched, the key is computer t by Colin+Smith · 2006-08-10 21:38 · Score: 2, Insightful · on Charter Flight Websites / Services?

We obviously have a hub & spoke system at the moment, the economic change to switched requires the hub and spoke system to become more expensive or switched transport to become less expensive. Hub & spoke is very expensive as it is, airports are expensive and large jets are also expensive. For that matter, trains are expensive, stations are expensive and rail lines are also very expensive. The additional security concerns will add to those costs.

Switched transport though has to become cheaper. At the moment it's limited primarily by the cost of the vehicle and cost of pilot/driver. The solution is to get rid of the pilot/driver entirely and to mass produce the vehicle to reduce the per unit cost. Frankly this means something like a fully automated Moller aircar or CarterCopter for air transport and Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) for ground based transport.

X-Plane! by NardofDoom · 2006-01-05 02:30 · Score: 1 · on New Aircraft is Part Blimp and Part Airplane

X-Plane is an awesome "game" that was actually used in the testing of this prototype and that of the Carter Copter. The amount of work that's gone into it is astounding. It's got the ability to run a motion control systems (even full-motion ones), span views across multiple monitors, and has even recieved certification for airline pilot training. And it runs on Linux! Anyone who's interested in flight simulators should check it out.

Depleted uranium in rotors? by RhettLivingston · 2005-06-28 12:55 · Score: 1 · on Carter Copter Breaks Mu-1 Barrier

Anyone know what the 55lbs of depleted uranium in each blade tip called out on the drawing at http://www.cartercopters.com/first_proto.html is for? I can imagine that they needed the centrifugal force to keep the blades rigid regardless of wind flow over them, but why go all the way to depleted uranium? Seems it would limit the producibility a bit.

Re:they cheated by WolfWithoutAClause · 2005-06-28 05:15 · Score: 1 · on Carter Copter Breaks Mu-1 Barrier

I fly radio controlled helicopters all the time and worked for Bell for quite some time. Although this is a great accomplishment, it doesn't really break the mu-1 barrier because it is a hybrid between a helicopter and an fixed wing airplane.

Um- without meaning to troll- if you really are so expert, how come you don't know the difference between an autogyro and a helicopter? Cartercopter is a cross between a fixed wing and an autogyro.

That aside, mu-1 does cause potential issues even with the Cartercopter, but they claim they have controlled it - for an example of issues they still get more lift on the forward wing than the trailing wing, and, worse, the lift is uneven across the wing, check the diagrams here.

The really nice thing about this is that they think they've managed to (at high speed anyway) avoid problems like "mast bumping".

There has been a helicopter along the same lines: Lockheed Cheyenne AH56A. Looks much more complicated and expensive though.

And in this case Cartercopter looks better the projected top speed of a Cartercopter may be very high indeed- 500+ mph if the engine has sufficient power. The current prototype probably can't do much over 200 mph, due to lack of power. The Cheyenne never went over 240 mph.

Re:Made or simulated? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-14 10:48 · Score: 0 · on The Future of Flight

The software he used, X-Plane is being used by commercial aircraft and spacecraft companies. Most notably Scaled Composites for simulating SpaceShip One and Carter Copters for simulating their helicopter designs.

Not to mention Jetstream people using it in a full-size Jetstream simulator instead of official replacement components (which are way too expensive) - and that X-Plane is certified for training pilots by the FAA.

Popular Science has a good introductory article about X-Plane.

So yeah, I'd say that for a ballpark simulation - results obtainable in that program are probably damn close to what you'd get in real life. Especially since it's already been used to help design at least one real spacecraft.

A bit behind the times, really by ehintz · 2003-12-05 18:09 · Score: 1 · on First Hover Flight Test of X-50A Dragonfly

The CarterCopter has had proven VTOL flight with small canard-style wings for several years now, even a demonstration at Oshkosh. Boeing's a bit behind the ball on this one.

Re:CarterCopter a more likely V-22 replacement by ehintz · 2003-09-01 08:59 · Score: 1 · on Studies In Ornithopters

Read the specs here. Essentially, they spec a 25 rpm rotor speed at altitude (40k ft) and speed (420mph), with a 45k lbs payload and 2,500 mile range. At those speeds and altitudes the vast majority of the lift is generated by the airframe rather than the rotor. It's not really a gyroplane, more like a hybrid between fixed and gyro. As to why Boeing didn't do that, well, who knows. I mean, Hughes built the Spruce Goose, so it's not as if the big boys have never made foolish and wildly expensive trips down dead ends of engineering. I do know that others experimented with stopping the rotors entirely at altitude, but AFAIK the Cartercopters are the first to go with a greatly reduced rotor and lifting body at altitude. And they're patenting the hell out of it as they go so if it does work out they could have a nice monopoly.

Real cutting edge aviation tech - CarterCopter by Nick+Driver · 2003-09-01 08:10 · Score: 1 · on Studies In Ornithopters

The Cartercopter is a real piece of cutting-edge aviation technology... combining fixed-wings with a hybrid powered + autogyro rotor. Gonna be the first rotorcraft to break the one mu barrier too.

The preliminary jet-powered design looks pretty promising too.

Real cutting edge aviation tech - CarterCopter by Nick+Driver · 2003-09-01 08:10 · Score: 1 · on Studies In Ornithopters

The Cartercopter is a real piece of cutting-edge aviation technology... combining fixed-wings with a hybrid powered + autogyro rotor. Gonna be the first rotorcraft to break the one mu barrier too.

The preliminary jet-powered design looks pretty promising too.

CarterCopter a more likely V-22 replacement by ehintz · 2003-09-01 02:33 · Score: 2, Informative · on Studies In Ornithopters

CarterCopter

I don't believe it will go quite as fast as the V-22, but mechanically it's a much simpler design, more of a morph between a gyrocopter and fixed wing. In the 2-engine variety it will do a true hover, and they expect it to scale up into the C-130 size range or so. And manned experimental versions have been flying for a year or two now, even at Oshkosh.

Re:Shame by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-04-10 05:24 · Score: 1 · on Concorde to be Grounded

I feel that the next kewl feature in passenger aviation must be vertical takeoff and landing. Airports are much too big with those long runways. If passenger jets could do the Harrier thing, then airports could be almost like bus stops. (Although some clearance round the side of the aircraft would still be needed.)

Actually, there's Cartercopter.

This is a combination of gyrocopter and aeroplane- it has a very short takeoff and landing, but also has pretty good range. The small runways mean that they can be placed closer to the center of cities, or near to towns, and they would be much easier to get to, and from. I mean, total travel time to get to airports is very often more than flight time. What if the aeroplanes could pick you up from your home town?

You are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-20 10:38 · Score: 0 · on Fanwing Planes?

Don't you read anything? From Key Features of the Heliplane Design:

3. The Heliplane has full hover and sling load capabilities. Thrust from the large diameter propellers located on the wing provides three functions;
a. Counters the rotor torque during hover and slow speed flight. At speeds over 100 mph there is no torque reaction required for the rotor- the rotor is in full autorotation
b. Provides all the forward thrust requirements so the rotor can be unloaded and slowed down for high speed flight.
c. Allows the aircraft to remain level over wide CG shifts. A net forward or rearward thrust from the propellers forces the rotor to be tilted fore or aft to keep the aircraft in one spot and as a result will cause the aircraft to pitch up or down.

Sounds like it has "full hover" capabilities to me.

Re:Lacks any ability to glide by AB3A · 2002-11-20 07:03 · Score: 2 · on Fanwing Planes?

Uh, no. The birds would suffer a similar fate no matter what kind of aircraft they hit.

The Fanwing is a new name on an old concept: It's called an autogyro. And yes, there are many folks reexaming the autogyro as a less expensive and more reliable alternative to the helicopter. Unfortunately, many don't realize why the autogyro isn't more popular until they look more closely at the performance envelope.

Autogyros can be more efficient than helicopters, but inevitably they are less efficient than fixed wing airplanes. They also suffer from the same problems as other rotary wing aircraft.

As the forward speed of the main rotor wing tip approaches the speed of sound, they lose lift. Rotorcraft are speed limited in ways that fixed wing aircraft are not. The Cartercopter is one of the best attempts at reaching efficent speeds and cruise that I've seen.

For examples of other autogyros see Gyrobee and The Popular Rotorcraft Association

It's not revolutionary, it's merely evolutionary. Beware of those who claim otherwise. (Note: Moller has been working on these designs for decades and not one has been sold commercially as a working aircraft in any capacity --even experimental)

Re:How It Works by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-20 03:38 · Score: 0 · on Fanwing Planes?

So it's basically flown like an autogyro, right ? Low speed, can autorotate, it's roughly the same.

I can see one difference though: the fanwing blows air on its lifting surface, while the autogyro moves its lifting surface through the air. Maybe they should try the same technique used in many autogyros: diverting the main engine's power to the "squirel cage" for takeoffs, declutching it when the speed is sufficient and then using the main engine to propel the aircraft (just like the Carter Copter does) ?

Re:Flying Cars by WolfWithoutAClause · 2002-11-20 03:25 · Score: 5, Informative · on Fanwing Planes?

Unlikely. However there's always cartercopters which has demonstrated speeds of 180 mph and should have a top speed of about 450 mph, lands on a dime and can easily autorotate down if the power goes out (unlike a helicopter, where it is a major incident). Significantly it looks much safer than a helicopter, and outperforms helicopters (except a CarterCopter basically lacks hover, since it has an unpowered rotor, but for transportation, who cares?).

That's the nearest thing to a flying car I know of right now- unlike the other systems, this one seems to have fewer drawbacks.