Talk:Helicopter/Archive 1

message: This article is huge and hairy, with far too much on type recognition and not nearly enough about what makes them fly or how to control them, their advantages, benefits, limitations and hazards.   The Helicopter rotor is the beginning of an attempt to redress this but it has been threatened with merging into the main article.
Eventually I or some other pilot or engineer need to drastically rewrite the Helicopter article to address these issues. Benet Allen 22:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page quality, focus and coverage

message: : when viewed from below the rotor of a French, Russian, Soviet or Ukrainian designed helicopter rotates anti-clockwise, whilst a helicopter completed in Italy, the UK or USA rotates clockwise.
Are there laws that tell helicopter designers to do so? -- Toytoy 01:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
:: There are no laws as far as I know. I think it basically comes down to historical reasons. If you were trained in a clockwise helicopter, you might prefer clockwise. Any decent pilot can fly either one, you end up doing the right thing with the pedals anyway. I read in a helicopter theory book that the choice is arbitrary and the decision should be made on technical merits, e.g. engine shaft rotation, geometry of suitable transmissions etc. Madhu 16:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another possible explanation that I've heard is that during World War II the Germans were working with twin contra-rotating rotor designs as in the Focke-Achgelis Fa-61, and when the war ended, the French started their helicopter industry with leftover German parts.  For some reason there was a preponderance of main rotor components that advanced to the left, so that's what they used, and it became entrenched in French designs.  The Russians simply copied the French.  If Igor Sikorsky had still been in Russia, it might have turned out different, but he had emigrated to the United States decades earlier.  Sikorsky decided to make his single main rotor advance to the right, and the postwar British, German and Italian helicopter industries followed suit. Quicksilver 08:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I am interested in becoming a pilot and I find this article not very helpful. Instead of showing how the helicopter is actually mechanically controlled, like how the cyclic actually rotates the blades, all this article does is explain ways of how helicopters fail, crash, can be stalled, and destroyed. (67.83.10.27)
:Then, you can improve. That's why we use wiki, isn't it? - Marsian // talk  23:09, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) I apologize for my disappointing comment... - Marsian / talk 00:17:19, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
:When I considered learning to fly helicopters at a newly opened training facility in the early 1980's, more than a dozen prospective students showed up for the introduction.  When the chief instructor described the various ways one could get killed in a helicopter, four or five individuals stood up and walked out, never to return.  Those are the brutal facts of life for helicopter pilots.  Deal with them and live, or ignore them and die.  Quicksilver 08:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some interesting statistical evidence: since the introduction of the Robinson R22, helicopter accidents and incidents have risen dramatically. After careful study by the FAA, it was concluded that there is nothing wrong with the R-22, the problem is pilot error. The R-22 was the first widely used trainer that was accessible to the average aviator. The dramatic rise in accidents was due to a large number of non-military pilots discovering helicopters. There's a great write up about it. Basically, 92% of accidents were due to pilot error and all were preventable. I don't have the exact numbers, but more than 10% of all R22s sold were destroyed in accidents. One that I flew was severely damaged once (with an instructor) and completely destroyed later by a solo student. When I learned to fly R-22s, the throttle governer was an expensive option that no one purchased. Now it's required. SFAR 73 is another example of efforts to try and deal with the challenges of helicopter pilotage. Most FBOs now make renters sign a statement restricting flight maneuvers to the basics: no autos of any kind, no settling with power, no slope landings, absolutely no low-G maneuvers. Given the stats, I can't blame them. Here's a  vivid example of what can go wrong.
When I learned to fly the same story happened to me with the people walking out. After one month, one of the trainee student pilots took his hand off the cyclic control. The lesson finished at that point and I watched him walk out of the chief pilots office crying. You dont get a second chance. They politely tell you, "nothing personal but you have not got what it takes". I use to turn my head when talking to the instructor and he would cut the engine every time and you have three seconds to do everything you need to do to put the thing into an autorotation inorder to save your life. My instructor would sing or talk about girls and crack jokes and as soon as you smiled or laughed he would cut the engine. They do everything humanly possible to make you make a mistake including rushing you and overloading your work load. They ask you the best way to do an exercise and then make you do the exact opposite. Other than that I enjoyed every minute of learning to fly and I hope you do to.
Another reader here would very much like to know more about fuel types, engine and powertrain layouts and other such matters.
I've been thinking about these subject for some time now. I think there are several more articles that could be started:
* Helicopter pilotage
* Helicopter design, e.g. rotor, rotor head, tandem rotor design
* Helicopter engine/powertrain (this might be combined with above)
Anyone have any ideas how this should be structured?? If someone gets it started, I can add a lot of content Madhu 15:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Howabout something like Anatomy of a helicopter? Ojw 18:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I intend to start an article on Helicopter Pilotage.  Basically the flight control inputs and the resulting response from the aircraft.--Mbaur181 20:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Negative 

message: Isn't Igor Sikorsky considered today the inventor of the helicopter? The history part of the article makes very little mention of it and sweeps Sikorsky under the rug with other inventors like the history paragraph was edited
Also what purpose does the phrase "Incidentally, the Wright brothers were given this toy as kids and were very much fascinated by it." serve in an article about helicopters?
:I think this article has gotten way too big by itself. It really needs to be broken down somehow. There's so much information, some of it trivia, but a lot of solid foundation that it's just too hard to capture in a single article. Maybe this article should be just a short summary of the major topics which link to more detailed articles? For instance, the history of helicopter development can be an article by itself. There are a lot of people that had a hand in it and Sikorsky was a major player. Madhu 16:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe we can consider Igor Sikorsky as the inventor of the helicopter.  The puzzle of rotary wing flight was partly solved by many contributors before him, although his VS-300 design was among the first practical machines. To call Sikorsky the inventor of the helicopter is analogous to calling Henry Ford the inventor of the automobile -- historically inaccurate at best.  I agree that the article is getting a bit large and unwieldy.  Helicopters are a complex subject, and perhaps the material on the mechanics and aerodynamics should be separated from the material about operating them.  Quicksilver 18:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, can we stop with the Sikorski propaganda? First, the article credits him with "1st stable type in production", then FA-61 with "1st successful type", then some guy I never heard of with "invention". If the German '30s designs weren't stable, how'd they become successful? Luck? Stupid customers? The pix I've seen, they look pretty stable in flight, but then, I'm not working for the Sikorski propaganda dept. And the writer here? I'm damned if I know what to think, now. That's without mentioning any of the 1907 trials in Fr, either... Or the Rus twin-rot outrigger designs. Neither, I see, got mentioned here. Some research, & a lot of cleanup, seems in order....  Trekphiler 18:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow! That's some great writing! Who are you, anonymous author? Madhu 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wish. (Boy, I really p.o.'d somebody there, tho, didn't I?). FA-61's a tiltrotor? Every source I've seen (all I'd consider more reliable than such an obvious partisan) says "helicopter". That aiside, what's that make the Flettner Fl 282? A pipedream? (Ooops, sorry, I forgot, not designed by Sikorsky. My bad.) Not addressed by Mr PO is the contradiction in the article; if there's to be a "first", by definition, there should only be one, & in this case, Sikorsky ain't it. Was he brilliant? Yes. Was he the guy? No. Get over it.  Trekphiler 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sikorsky

message: The article refers to the serious dangers of rotor-contact with a fixed object, the fuselage or people. Is there any reason that the rotors do not have some sort of ring fixed around the blades to protect them from contact-damage (or slicing someone in half)? Many of the (cheaper) radio-controlled model helicopters have this feature. Although I know you cannot apply the engineering principles for toys to full scale models, the article could be improved by addressing this issue, especially since it is implemented in model helicopters. 
A ring attached around the outside of the rotors would (in theory) prevent the rotor damage and jolting of the hub mechanism that makes contact so dangerous. A ring could also support the rotors in tension when they sag downwards and reduce the problem of fuselage contact under low/zero-gee flight conditions. If each rotor was attached to the ring via a swivelling plain bearing shaft, the ring would not impede the ability of the blades to flex during forward and backward rotation when in forward motion. A ring would also reduce the radial flex of the rotors (assuming this is problematic, perhaps increasing vibration).
The above reads like a design proposal, but I'd like to know why this feature is almost or never-implemented in real designs (I guessed the reason is one of 'too much to go wrong', by the way).--ChrisJMoor 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's never implemented, even though blade strike accidents often have tragic consequences:
*A ring would add a significant amount of mass, and hence rotor inertia, where it isn't wanted - at the blade tips
*A ring would prevent blades from flapping up and down as they face towards or away from the translational airflow
*A ring would prevent blades from leading and lagging, which is necessary on systems with more than two blades
*In order to provide a realistic degree of blade strike protection, such a ring would have to be massively strong and contribute a big weight penalty
There may be more reasons.   If other users agree I may add this to the main article! Benet Allen 10:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do helicopters not use ring-protected rotors? 

message: years ago I was doing research on toy makers in the bay area, and ended up researching Stanley Hiller due to his having invented and manufactured toy cars (Hiller Comet) as a teen in his dad's garage in Berkeley. Though I have since essentially forgotten everything I learned, there were many newspaper articles at the time that seemed to credit him as having been instrumental in making helicopters practical. They practically credited him with creating the first working copter... I realize there may have been some exaggeration, but does anyone know if he was important in copter development, and would a mention here be warranted? Jafafa Hots 05:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some interesting info about Stanley Hiller, Jr. at the National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center. Great helicopter display, BTW. I don't remember the details, but he sounded like a very impressive guy. He built quite a bit at a relatively young age. There's a nice scene of a Hiller 12E (I'm guessing) towards the end of Goldfinger. I believe he built one of the first coaxial rotor systems. This website has some good info, but it claims Hillers H-23s were used in the M*A*S*H (TV series). I don't know, they look like  Bell 47Gs to me. I guess you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Web ;-) Madhu 02:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: M*A*S*H shows the Bell 47, although both airframes were in use during that time. (Born2flie 07:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanley Hiller 

message: In german wikipedia we feel that the french "Gyroplane-Laboratoire" from Breguet was "the first stable flying helicopter". One might consider at least to mention this model in the History section: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroplane-Laboratoire
--84.189.159.223 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History: Gyroplane-Laboratoire?

message: How much is knowen about him and his contributions? Is he worth mentioning in the first paragraph? — Soupisgoodfood 00:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oszkár Asbóth 

message: Attack helicopters are used in the military to engage the enemy using missles and machine guns. Native americans are the people that have lived in the Americas before the Europeans came to colonize America.
There are some attack helicopters that are named after Native American tribe names, such as Comanche, Apache, or Kiowa.
Isn't it ironic, how, after the USA destroyed the Indians, then name their own attack helicopters Indian names? Isn't it ironic how a "Native American" helicopter, used by the United States, is used to destroy the enemy when the name of the helicopter itself was destroyed 150 years ago? 
Good friend100 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Pretty ironic all right. --Guinnog 04:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just bothers me sometimes when I read helicopter names. Good friend100 12:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to naming a helicopter after a Native American tribe, the U.S. Army receives permission from the tribe. I'm not quite sure how they could receive permission from something that was "destroyed". For sure, the Native American tribes' lifestyles were drastically altered and thousands were massacred, but conquered, subdued, assimilated all seem to be more accurate descriptions of the events of history. (Born2flie 08:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native Americans and attack helicopters 

message: Is the same. But there is two articles; vortex ring state redirects to settling with power. so that's one. and there is vortex ring. I'm fixing this article, because it treated it as two different thingeys. --80.63.213.182 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vortex ring state and Settling with power 

message: The subsection titled "Reduction & Elimination of Common Helicopter Flight Hazards" under section "Hazards of helicopter flight" reads like a marketing brochure for the coaxial design.  I'm not qualified to address the specifics, but the terminology used doesn't seem NPOV to me.
63.161.86.254 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: One line says, "more expensive to buy and operate" then the next paragraph says "helicopters are very efficient, (snip) and costing considerably less to buy and operate".
Which is correct?   Stuph 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradicting pricing? 

message: Substituted at 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment