Chinese Aviation Industry
- Thread starter FriedRiceNSpice
- Start date
Quickie
Colonel
The test-bed model uses the same propulsion method as the helicopter. The two sets of main rotor blades at the top (as opposed to the one set of main rotor blades in a helicopter) provides the lifting force as well as the forward propulsion force. The two sets of smaller rotor blades just behind the main rotors does the work of the helicopter tail rotors in providing the turning force. I think this kind of arrangement has the advantage of allowing the aircraft to have the more streamline fuselage shape more akin to an aeroplane than a helicopter.
Just superficial similarity no more than similarity between a F-15 and Su-27.
For one that differs in lift generation and aerodynamic control, Ka-22's lift rotors are not used during cruising. All lift are from the main wings, a typical fixed wing aircraft. While this aircraft use both wings and lift rotors for cruising.
Secondly, this aircraft's lift rotor is stiff, Ka-22 is flexible. The stiff one is suitable for high speed (over 400kmh) even when it is turning into the wind. The flexible rotors just create resistence and being dead weight. So there is the high speed matter.
Ka-22 is an early experiment, and no doubt a respectable achievement. But it is old, taking credit from this Chinese aircraft is not really a compliment to Ka-22.
Last edited:
The source
- Stiff rotors.
- Distance of the two lift rotors is 1.25R(adius).
- There is a 5 degree angle between the planes of airfoil and lift rotors.
- The rotors turn backwards over the top of the wings which is "discharge area". (I don't really understand discharge). This benefit generating lift by the forward turning outer blades.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
How do we know this is a testbed rather than a toy purchased from the local hobby store?
You know I was joking when saying "toy" with quotation marks.
The intention was certainly not to take away anything from the Chinese project, but to show that it's not so "weird" after all, with at least one historical precedent.
That the Ka-22 doesn't feature rigid rotors or other much more recent developments like composites hardly detracts from the fact that the basic concept (as opposed to, say, a tilt-rotor or any of the other radically different high-speed rotorcraft layouts) is very much the same.
Last edited:
Quickie
Colonel
I don't know about you, other than similarity in the main rotors and propellers arrangement (the Ka-22 has the propellers in front of the wings, the test model has it at the back), the test model look quite different from the Ka-22, with the former totally missing of the wings, rudders, elevators of a fixed wing aircraft.
The two aircraft are also very different in their method of flight functions.
The Ka -22 uses the rudder, elevator, aileron for controls during level flight. On the other hand, the test model is totally missing of this control surfaces and have to rely on its main rotors and propellers for propulsion and controls during cruising flight.
Last edited: