SUMMARY OF CARTERCOPTER FLIGHT TESTS


Flight Tests

  1. Goals of the Four Main Test Phases
  2. Brief Summary of Total Flight Time
  3. Olney, Texas - Tuesday & Wednesday; September 22 & 23, 1998:
  4. Olney, Texas - Thursday, October 29, 1998:
  5. Sheppard AFB (Wichita Falls, TX) - Saturday, November 14, 1998:
  6. Sheppard AFB (Wichita Falls, TX) - Saturday & Sunday, February 6-7, 1999:
  7. Sheppard AFB (Wichita Falls, TX) - Saturday, February 20, 1999:
  8. Sheppard AFB (Wichita Falls, TX) - Saturday & Sunday, February 27-28, 1999:
  9. Olney, Texas - Wednesday & Thursday, March 31 & April 1, 1999:

Pictures from the various tests


-

GOALS OF FOUR FLIGHT TEST PHASES

PHASE I: Perform high-speed runway tests with the aircraft balanced on its main landing gear only. Check the main stick control for proper spindle tilt and the collective stick control for proper rotor collective.

PHASE II: Investigate flight performance between 30 MPH and 150 MPH. At 30 MPH, the rotor provides all of the control and most of the lift. At 150 MPH, the wings provide most of the lift with the ailerons and stabilator providing most of the control.

PHASE III: Perform zero-roll takeoffs and landings. Perfect the technique.

PHASE IV: Fly as fast as possible with minimum rotor RPM and still maintain rotor stability. The RPM will be gradually reduced until 100 RPM is achieved or rotor flapping reaches the maximum safe limit. When the rotor is slowed to between 100 and 150 RPM, the retreating blade will have 100% reverse airflow over the airfoil. This is something no other commercially viable rotorcraft has been able to achieve.

1


Brief Summary of Total Flight Time

At the conclusion of the most recent test flight series on April 1, 1999, the aircraft had accumulated more than 6 « hours of flight time in 11 days of testing conducted over a seven-month period (almost all of the flight time coming in the last three months).

1


Olney, Texas - Tuesday & Wednesday; September 22 & 23, 1998:

CC Appearance: The rotor (3rd generation) has a "dogleg" near each rotor tip. The cockpit door was not used. The rotor-hub cap was not attached. Only the panels to the engine compartment were installed.

Performance: Insignificant flight time. The best flight was 80 MPH and 30 feet altitude.

Incidents: High-speed taxi runs and hard braking caused the right brake to temporarily catch fire. Hard landing after 8 seconds of flight caused the rotor to shear 2 inches off the top of the right rudder. The nose wheel also snapped off.

Decision: The tests confirmed the delta-3 angle in the rotor hub was correct. A new rotor having no "doglegs" needed to be installed. The rotor-disk could be used at end of high- speed runs to help "brake" the aircraft.

Pictures:

2


Olney, Texas - Thursday, October 29, 1998:

CC Appearance: No stripes were painted on the repaired right rudder. The new (4th generation) rotor is straight - without "doglegs" as before. The rotor-hub cap was not attached.

Performance: Insignificant flight time (only "skimmed" barely off the runway).

Incidents: None.

Decisions: The aircraft was ready for tests scheduled at Sheppard AFB - to make use of the longer runways (10,000 & 13,100 feet instead of the 5,000 feet at Olney).

Pictures:

3


Sheppard AFB (Wichita Falls, TX) - Saturday, November 14, 1998:

CC Appearance: The stripes have been repainted on the right rudder. The cabin door is still not installed during flights. The rotor-hub cap is not attached.

Performance: Insignificant flight time. Best flight was 80 MPH and 15 feet altitude.

Incidents: Dead-band was found in the slave cylinder of the cyclic control spindle. A brief blade-weave developed while the dead-band was being checked.

Decisions: Install new ball bearing mounted push-pull cables for the rotor head control system. Change the rotor design to prevent future blade-weave.

Pictures:

4


Sheppard AFB (Wichita Falls, TX) - Saturday & Sunday, February 6-7, 1999:

CC Appearance: A two-inch wide trim-tab-like extension was added to the outer nine feet of the rotor ends (now called the 5th generation rotor). Twin radio antenna were added to the roof. Linear ball bearing mounted push-pull cables now run from the main control stick (for spindle tilt) to the rotor head. The new control stick has no slaved hydraulics. Tensioners were added to the engine drive belt to keep it tight. A 5/16-inch diameter steel cable (for the future ballistic chute) now runs from the tip of the nose boom to the small door above the trailing edge of the right wing. A yellow web-strap now runs from ceiling to floor behind both seats in the cockpit. For the first time the cabin door was installed for flights. The rotor-head cap was still not attached.

Performance: 2 hours of flight time. The aircraft weighted just over 3,100 pounds. Takeoffs at 60-65 MPH used less than 500 feet of runway. Landings were made at 40 MPH. Two-mile flights were made at 105 MPH and 120 feet altitude, with large "S" turns across the runway.

Incidents: The left engine mount broke and was replaced over-night. Two sensors providing down-link data were recalibrated. Excessive stick shake was observed.

Decisions: The control system needed stronger trim controls to relieve stick pressures at the higher forward speeds. The cabin needed a better ventilation system. More information was needed concerning the stick shake.

Pictures:

5


Sheppard AFB (Wichita Falls, TX) - Saturday, February 20, 1999:

CC Appearance: Two ventilation holes were added to the nose of the aircraft, one on each side of the nose boom. The holes connect to adjustable air-vent outlets inside the cockpit - one under each corner of the instrument panel. The cockpit's oscillating fan was moved from the right side of the panel to the center of the cabin's rear wall. The video camera was relocated to the right rear corner of the same wall. The nose gear extension was painted gray (rust-colored metal before). Three, blue, anti-slip strips were glued to the top of the left wing - just outside the cabin door. For the first time, the rotor-head cap was installed and all access doors attached.

Performance: « hour of flight time.

Incidents: High cross winds made landings more difficult than usual. Seams separated on the left side muffler and could not be repaired.

Decisions: Redesign the exhaust system - and exclude the two mufflers. Provide better cooling to the engine compartment.

Pictures:

6


Sheppard AFB (Wichita Falls, TX) - Saturday & Sunday, February 27-28, 1999:

CC Appearance: Now there is no exhaust pipe exiting above the prop spinner. Both of the mufflers were discarded. A single straight-through exhaust pipe now exits on each side of the engine cowling.

Performance: 2 hours of flight time. The aircraft weighed slightly more than 3,100 pounds. Takeoffs were at 20-30 MPH using 25 feet of runway. The aircraft then accelerated to 50 MPH in 6 seconds. Flights were at speeds of 90-100 MPH. Landings were at 20 MPH.

Incidents: HP dropped off slightly. The engine was using more oil than expected. Severe stick shake was experienced above 100 MPH.

Decisions: Rebuild the engine and increase compression from 8.2:1 to 10.3:1. Decrease stick shake by adding rotor head bearing blocks - allowing the teetering axis to be raised two inches. Remove the nose gear extension in the expectation of doing jump takeoffs during the next test series.

Pictures:

7


Olney, Texas - Wednesday & Thursday, March 31 & April 1, 1999:

CC Appearance: The nose gear extension is now removed. The "arms & forks" now extend through the top of the rotor-hub cap. Small skids were added to the tip of the nose boom and just forward of each tail rudder. Both rudder extensions were trimmed to align with the skids. Large air-duct-hoses inside the engine compartment now route cooling air to the engine. A calibrated "dip-stick" was added to the fuel tank for visual verification of fuel quantity.

Performance: 2+ hours of flight time.

Incidents: Rotor RPM was being transmitted only intermittently to ground control. The electric prop controller was "hunting" for the best RPM. When the engine was run at a higher RPM to increase the HP - the prop efficiency would decrease. The rear fuel pump did not prime - so it "burned out".

Decisions: Fine tune software for the electric prop controller. Redesign the prop drive pulleys so that when the engine is run at a higher RPM to produce more HP - the prop will be running at a more efficient lower RPM thus producing more thrust. Connect both fuel pumps with a by-pass line to allow either pump to re-prime itself. Increase landing gear extension/retraction speeds in preparation for "gear-up" flights.

Pictures:


Text & Pics supplied by Rod Anderson & Glenna Waters - formatted in HTML by Doug Marker


Go to Main Menu
THIS SITE = www.internetage.com.au/cartercopters/
D.Marker email: dmarker@zeta.org.au
R.Anderson email: cartercopter@casagrande.com
- 04 Dec 1998
Created: 07 May 1999 - Updated: 07 May 1999
Copyright © 1999 Internet Age Pty Ltd