Realistice Future Rotorcraft Design & The Private Sector

[davh12]

I got a question for all of you. Why do people in the industry pay little attention to small or pass through entities with regard to helicopter design? I have a patent waiting for docketing. I presented my design concept to DARPA. They said the work outlined in my "whitepaper" preproposal" had merit, but felt the pay was not high enough for DOD to "Advance the state of the art" as they called it. It surprised me a little because DARPA had just closed a BAA proposal for a Mission Adaptive Rotor system (MAR).

http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/mar/index.html

But according to some, the "industry" usually pays no attention to the private sector and "small entities" such as myself. I did get a call from Bell Helicopters and they were up front with me. They would've considered looking at my design, but the guy that I spoke with in the XworkX department told me that Bell's legal department told him "hands off" because I'm still active duty army. I'm not in the army aviation. I've always been Infantry, but I have a cognitive interest in rotorcraft design and someone once told me that I could not do this, so I had to prove them wrong and do it anyway, but I truely want to see the advancement of helicopter technology. Given the start up of the Vertical Lift COnsortium (VLC) in Jan 2010 because DOD has not been happy with recent failed or unacceptable projects that fell through, you would think that the industry would look everywhere pausible for new ideas. I'm working on a small scale proof of concept prototype.

http://www.envisionhelicopters.com

is my newly created site, but it's still not finished and it may not pop on google because it's too new. You can leave comments at my site. I'm not trying to promote or anything. It is all freelance and non-profit. I was wondering what others might think. I've received some positive feed back. Tell me what you think. So far the other indutrial forums have turned their nose up to me. The Wright Brothers were not engineers, or sponsored.....yet they had an impact on the world. Why did industry lose faith in imagination simply because they believe the origin of an idea did not come from someone w/ an engineering degree? Thanx

Dave

 

[davh12]

Sorry about the mispelling...........I cannot find the "edit" Icon

Dave

 

[SAITAETGrad]

What is in your patent that is unique? Controlling a rotorcraft by control of the CG is not new as you say.

The majority of patents out there are indefensible dribble so when you say you have a patent, a lot of organizations and companies are understandably going to bring a lot of skepticism.

Too much has been made of the Wright Brothers supposed non-engineer status. While they didn't identify themselves as such, by the standards of the day they could have. They had drafting and technical skills including mastery of design, manufacturing, structural stress, heat release, and aerodynamics. They were up on all the latest knowledge and data and scientifically proceeded to generate their own. They weren't just can-do renegades- they were also analytical monks of the engineering discipline. Why do you think there has never been a hollywood blockbuster of their story- no love interest!...just hard work and ambition.

Where the Wright Brothers ultimately failed was their obsession with their patent protection. That's why they were unable to attract investment and ended up watching other people such as Curtiss capitalize. An important history lesson for anyone involved with innovation.

If your project does have unique merit, the best of luck. Perhaps your communication and presentation could make all the difference in making those industry contacts you seek.

 

[davh12]

SAITAETGrad,

I have metal fab / precision machining experience, votech stuff. As far as my patent I'm not hell bent on protection. I just cannot seem to get through the red tape because of my being active duty military. I've already had a little focus from Bell, Northrop Grumman, and DARPA as far as industry attention on this particular design. The "being military" has caused me to have the appearence of having "design Kooties". It's not soley CG shift. It's a combination of CG manipulation, in-flight reconfiguring airframe and not quite exoskeletal airframe, but the pilot interacts with the aircraft as far as moving with the gimbaled airframe. Seibels design had a tendency to flip over in the event of a hard landing which is why I chose a tilt-mast gimbaled airframe instead of "sliding the pilot's weight forward, aft, and lateral. Go to

http://www.baldwintechnology.com

and you get a "warm and fuzzy" where I'm heading as far as morphing airframes, just not V22 combined w/ VTOL like Mr. Baldwin's concept. A projected reduction in operational maintenance costs is foreseeable, but the industry gets alot of their profits from that High Dollar maintenance. The rest is posted on the web. Either way....I'll pursue it on my own. I was just using the Wrights as an example. I'm not some weirdo that watches too much SciFi channel. I don't even think I have SciFi...anyway Thank you for your feedback. It is appreciated. Maybe some "ceritified engineers" have a perception about design as far as it can only be a good idea if an engineer came up with it. Well it's not my place to judge and I do appreciate Mech. engineers. Thanks again.

Regards,

Dave

 

[SAITAETGrad]

Davh, I wish you the best of luck, really I do. You got some interest- in my mind that's a very strong start.

You have repeated your claim that if you were a professional engineer, you'd be taken more seriously. That's just not true. Likely you would be facing the same feedback, skepticism, and rejections if you were a P.Eng. Most people with a P.Eng. stamp have very rudimentary engineering skills, so don't feel out of place in comparison.

In the end, it's not you being evaluated, it's your concept and supporting documentation. No matter how good it is, you'll still should expect it to take some time to catch fire. In the meantime, focus on the quality of your documentation (clarity of message backed up by solid analysis and figures) and forget the percieved slight- just some advice from the peanut gallery.

 

[tbuelna]

davh12,

At least you got a response from DARPA! That's more attention than most independents get from DARPA.

You shouldn't feel that the rotorcraft companies intentionally ignore independent inventors such as yourself. In fact, if you had valid test data or a working prototype of some piece of hardware or technology that would give them a cost effective performance gain, then they would probably love to talk to you. But if all you have is a good idea, then they're probably not going to be too receptive.

The reason for this is that they are business men operating a company that must turn a profit. Developing new technology is extremely expensive and somewhat risky, especially in aerospace. Unfortunately for guys like you (and me!) rotorcraft companies prefer to "buy" developed technology rather than paying to develop it themselves.

You should also consider the return on investment (ROI) from developing new aircraft technologies. For example, let's say your idea costs $50 million to develop and get into production. And it adds $500K in added value to the aircraft sale price. Then the manufacturer would need to sell at least 100 aircraft to just recoup their development cost. 100 aircraft is several years' worth of production for most commercial helicopters.

There's no conspiracy or prejudice against the little guy on the part of the rotorcraft companies. It's just about cost, risk and return for their shareholders.

Good luck with your project.
Terry

 

[davh12]

SAITAETgrad & tbuelna,

I appreciate your feedback.