737 crash in China (Page 5/8)
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 25, 07:37 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

A Loop and a Roll.

And yes, one has to be a little bit nuts to do those things although some of today's aircraft can easily accomplish both. About 20 years ago (maybe longer, can't remember), the Army finally figured out it needed to teach aerial combat to helicopter pilots. Think Top Gun type school but for helicopters. I sent a few Warrant Officers to the school but, never got the opportunity myself. Any chance I may have had evaporated when I went to Test Pilot School.

Rams




I've always been fascinated by helicopters... and I'm interested to see what the future of helo-flight (?) looks like in the future. if... say we have something that's more like a quad-copter with a vessel in the middle. Sort of like an Osprey but with two more sets of rotors???

I was talking to an aerodynamics engineer (among other things), and he was explaining to me that maximum efficiency is gained by 3 blades on a rotor. 2 is less optimal, and 4 is also less optimal. But... the more rotors, the more torque / weight it can support; however, there is a noticeable decrease in efficiency when you begin to add more blades.
blackrams MAR 25, 10:35 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I've always been fascinated by helicopters... and I'm interested to see what the future of helo-flight (?) looks like in the future. if... say we have something that's more like a quad-copter with a vessel in the middle. Sort of like an Osprey but with two more sets of rotors???

I was talking to an aerodynamics engineer (among other things), and he was explaining to me that maximum efficiency is gained by 3 blades on a rotor. 2 is less optimal, and 4 is also less optimal. But... the more rotors, the more torque / weight it can support; however, there is a noticeable decrease in efficiency when you begin to add more blades.



I agree with the fascination of rotary winged aircraft, the requirements to be accepted to all US military flight schools were identical for all branches when I signed up, I actively sought rotary wing, had a good friend that wanted to fly jets and he did but that was not my choice.

Based on my knowledge/understanding, that would be correct, I only flew two bladed helicopters as a mission and test pilot (OH-58s, UH-1s, and AH-1s). The most efficient rotor system I know of is that on a CH 47 with a tandem-three bladed system is the most efficient although, I have never piloted one. My first to solo in was a Hughes 300 (C model IIRC) which has a three bladed rotor system (the engine was a horitizonal six cyclinder with six fan belts coupling the engine to the transmission), I have flown a Hughes 500D once and that was a kick in the ass but, that was just once. The current rotary winged aircraft being flown today are much more sophisticated, complex and will outperform what I flew. Yeah, I'm jealous as hell.

Reference future rotary winged aircraft, I almost changed services to the US Marines when I first saw the Osprey, it's one heck of a flying machine but, as with all multi-engine, tandem rotor aircraft capable of hover, there are challenges with power transfer as in transmissions and combining transmissions. The CH 47 had/has five transmissions transferring energy from the two engines to the rotor systems. All five have to be optimal for safe flight. Although rotor winged aircraft have come a long way since inception, I believe there's still a long way to go. I don't know that we'll ever see birds like are in the movie Avatar, I'd love to see it.

Rams
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 25, 11:58 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

I agree with the fascination of rotary winged aircraft, the requirements to be accepted to all US military flight schools were identical for all branches when I signed up, I actively sought rotary wing, had a good friend that wanted to fly jets and he did but that was not my choice.

Based on my knowledge/understanding, that would be correct, I only flew two bladed helicopters as a mission and test pilot (OH-58s, UH-1s, and AH-1s). The most efficient rotor system I know of is that on a CH 47 with a tandem-three bladed system is the most efficient although, I have never piloted one. My first to solo in was a Hughes 300 (C model IIRC) which has a three bladed rotor system (the engine was a horitizonal six cyclinder with six fan belts coupling the engine to the transmission), I have flown a Hughes 500D once and that was a kick in the ass but, that was just once. The current rotary winged aircraft being flown today are much more sophisticated, complex and will outperform what I flew. Yeah, I'm jealous as hell.

Reference future rotary winged aircraft, I almost changed services to the US Marines when I first saw the Osprey, it's one heck of a flying machine but, as with all multi-engine, tandem rotor aircraft capable of hover, there are challenges with power transfer as in transmissions and combining transmissions. The CH 47 had/has five transmissions transferring energy from the two engines to the rotor systems. All five have to be optimal for safe flight. Although rotor winged aircraft have come a long way since inception, I believe there's still a long way to go. I don't know that we'll ever see birds like are in the movie Avatar, I'd love to see it.

Rams



That's pretty cool... I've never "flown" anything except a drone, so I wouldn't know. But my experience on a helicopter has largely been really smooth. With the exception of one instance where we hit turbulence and the helicopter seemed to gain and lose altitude rapidly... which was totally not cool with me. But every other flight on a Huey felt like I was floating on a cloud, I mean... it's like a felt nothing. Insanely smooth... the helicopter rotor would just go faster, and suddenly we lifted off like I was on a mattress.

I did NOT like being on a C21, which you probably know, is the bare-bones government version of the Learjet something or other. It was a 7 seater (7th seat basically being the toilet in the back with a cushion and seat belt strapped to it). The flight was fine... but the pilots treated it like a fighter jet... which was both hilarious and totally shitty at the same time. We start taking off thinking everything is going to be like a nice commercial-style flight, and then the pilots basically go vertical... hahaha, I did not like that.
rinselberg MAR 25, 12:27 PM


COLLECTIVE PITCH

Representatives from the armed forces deliver the ceremonial first pitch for the Washington Nationals on Monday, April 3, 2017.

Photo credit: Win McName/Getty Images. The New York Times.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-25-2022).]

blackrams MAR 25, 12:48 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


That's pretty cool... I've never "flown" anything except a drone, so I wouldn't know. But my experience on a helicopter has largely been really smooth. With the exception of one instance where we hit turbulence and the helicopter seemed to gain and lose altitude rapidly... which was totally not cool with me. But every other flight on a Huey felt like I was floating on a cloud, I mean... it's like a felt nothing. Insanely smooth... the helicopter rotor would just go faster, and suddenly we lifted off like I was on a mattress.




Todd,
Once the aircraft is running and up to the designed engine/rotor speed, that speed/RPM is not suppose to change. It stays constant (assuming everything is as it's supposed to be), all that changes is the "pitch" of the rotor blades. That's keeping it simple. Reference the smooth ride, you can thank whoever balanced and tracked those rotor blades for that.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-25-2022).]

maryjane MAR 25, 01:12 PM
Coaxial main rotors with a pusher prop is the next or current helicopter evolution.
Defiant, Defiant X, Raider, or a more traditional approach like Bell's 360 Invictus, which has a single 4 blade main, with a ducted tail rotor, and wings.
Army is looking for a Blackhawk replacement. Long Range Air Assault (LRAA)

Defiant flies x2 as far as the Blackhawk, x2 as fast and has the same physical footprint.

360 Invictus is Bell's candidate for future light attack/recon with the developmental program being called 'future attack recon aircraft' (fara) to replace Kiowa Bell OH-58. Sikorsky's FARA entry is RaiderX
MidEngineManiac MAR 25, 01:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


That's pretty cool... I've never "flown" anything except a drone, so I wouldn't know. But my experience on a helicopter has largely been really smooth. With the exception of one instance where we hit turbulence and the helicopter seemed to gain and lose altitude rapidly... which was totally not cool with me. But every other flight on a Huey felt like I was floating on a cloud, I mean... it's like a felt nothing. Insanely smooth... the helicopter rotor would just go faster, and suddenly we lifted off like I was on a mattress.

I did NOT like being on a C21, which you probably know, is the bare-bones government version of the Learjet something or other. It was a 7 seater (7th seat basically being the toilet in the back with a cushion and seat belt strapped to it). The flight was fine... but the pilots treated it like a fighter jet... which was both hilarious and totally shitty at the same time. We start taking off thinking everything is going to be like a nice commercial-style flight, and then the pilots basically go vertical... hahaha, I did not like that.



I like to raz Rams about it from time to time, but helicopters are not easy machines to fly. I tried a couple times in Robson R-22's in the 90's and it didn't take long for me to say "screw this, give me something that does what I tell it to do and goes where I tell it to go". Helicopters arent very good at either of those things, they just dont like to listen.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 03-25-2022).]

blackrams MAR 25, 03:15 PM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:


I like to raz Rams about it from time to time, but helicopters are not easy machines to fly. I tried a couple times in Robson R-22's in the 90's and it didn't take long for me to say "screw this, give me something that does what I tell it to do and goes where I tell it to go". Helicopters arent very good at either of those things, they just dont like to listen.




As my first Instructor Pilot told me, in a helicopter, you don't move the controls, you think about moving the controls and that's all it takes.
BTW, I recognize envy when I see or read it.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-25-2022).]

82-T/A [At Work] MAR 25, 08:48 PM

quote
Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:

I like to raz Rams about it from time to time, but helicopters are not easy machines to fly. I tried a couple times in Robson R-22's in the 90's and it didn't take long for me to say "screw this, give me something that does what I tell it to do and goes where I tell it to go". Helicopters arent very good at either of those things, they just dont like to listen.





I'd love to be able to fly a helicopter...

But I'm also pretty excited about the future of air flight. I can't remember what thread it was... but I think MJ was in the subject. It had those drone cars... that's going to be awesome.
blackrams MAR 26, 08:35 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I'd love to be able to fly a helicopter...



Apparently, so would MEM.