h a l f b a k e r yI didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Sit in helicopter seat. Take off. Be in an emergency. Eject. Try to avoid the spinning blades.
helicopter without spinning blades?
http://www.eskimo.c...rg/ideas.html#blimp
per edski's annotation; same thing as I was babbling about, albeit more eloquent. [absterge, Apr 21 2000, last modified Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
I believe some helicopters will jettison their propellor blades prior to blasting the canopy off. Hey, if you're crashing anyway, who needs them? At any rate, I saw a helicoptor in "Goldeneye" work that way. |
|
| |
Or the seat could jetison horizontally before the 'chute opens. If you ejected downwards, you could 1) have a burning helicopter descend quite rapidly onto your person [out of the frying pan into the fire] or 2) hit the ground so hard as a result of the ejection force that you die anyway [more of the same: sayonara life in this world]. |
|
| |
Some of the more advanced military helicopters have the ability to eject you - either sideways, or first blow the blades off and then eject you upwards. |
|
| |
How about a seat elsewhere that holds you down until you promise to stop even thinking about getting into a helicopter? |
|
| |
There are two types of helicopters in the world: those that have gone down, and those that are going down. how bout a copter-chute? copter sized chute that would let you float down in an emergency. |
|
| |
Heh. Helicopters are often referred to as "collections of aviation parts flying in close formation." |
|
| |
But they're a blast to fly in...Er...
| x
*\ | ()
(:0~D\/*|==( )8
/ \/*| (__)
* |
|
|
| |
There is actually at least one helicopter equipped with an ejection seat. It's Kamov Ka-50 (NATO name "Hokum") also called as the "Black Shark" or the "Werewolf". It has a typical Zvezda ejection seat but it has got a rocket booster which pulls the seat and the pilot out of the cockpit. Before that is possible, the blades of Ka-50's co-axial rotor are jettisoned with little explosive charges. That's why their flying tactics do not include close formation flying. |
|
| |
why not invent a helicopter with blades that don't actually spin and then you wouldn't get decapitated on exit |
|
| |
Because a helicopter with blades that don't spin is called an 'airplane'... |
|
| |
...or possibly a paperweight. |
|
| |
only barely related once again, and once again in praise of Bill Beaty. I've been pondering at great length how one might manufacture such a vehicle as a helicopter with blades that don't spin. Actually, it wouldn't be blades, and they would be spinning, but not along the same axis as a standard blade arrangement. With a vortex ring that was sufficiently large, with the cockpit on the inside that was free to rotate in all three directions (weight to the bottom, ob.), one could achieve impressive ac-/de- celeration and all sort of maneuverability. This ring would be composed of a toroidial axis, affixed to and surrounded by a chain of blimps, all full of some lighter-than-air gas. If these blimps were all spun in the same direction, (heh. semantics deliberately ignored) there should be an effect that could affect net movement. egnor? physics lesson, please? (see Bill's site, and build yourself a vortex-launcher to see exactly what I'm rambling about; I did just this weekend [and I obtained a much larger can at work to make the next-size-up model soon, too]). |
|
| |
well, Peter, I've done some more thinking, and I've decided that this is not the place for my musings, what with the required graphics and all... I'm going to put together what I've theorized and anyone is welcome to visit and comment on what I've come up with. (the link will be to my own site, later today or tomorrow) |
|
| |
Absterge, the divice you are conciving would be impossible. Based on the laws of physics, the device would theoreticly fly. But it would be to fragile all systems would have to be exactly calibrated with eachother, with several sensors to detect any change in wind or gust and a fast computer that could quikly adjust all the systems to match the change of enviornment or the vechical would tear itself appart, just like the Helistat did. |
|
| |
solution is a gryo platform the blades are on the side not on top. Unfortunatly the gyro platform is a very unstable, and runs the risk of capsizing in mid air just like a boat. |
|
| |
another option is simply to get rid of helicopters altogether and replace them with ion sleds. A very simple technology that already exsist and doesnot require any fuel except for propulsion. (although I am not sure how much weight an ion sled can hold.)?| — | wood2coal,
Aug 27 2001, last modified Aug 28 2001 |
|
|
| |
What about a helicopter with the propellers underneath it? |
|
| |
Dynamically unstable, to begin with. |
|
| |
Second, how do you use landing gear? |
|
| |
Third, it's better to have the bulk of the helicopter on the "push" side of the fan, in terms of wind resistance. |
|
| |
But mostly, it's the dynamic instability, I mean helicopters are barely stable anyhow, why adopt a push-fan type approach? |
|
| |
A helicopter withe blades underneith is baked, I think it's called a hover platform. Basically it's a ducted fan that a person stands on. They work but they never caught on. They are continuing to be worked on on-and-off in the "Air Jeep" program, though now it's two ducted fans with seats in between. |
|
| |
Surpassed by quadcopter technology. |
|
| |