Subject:
|
Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:25:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
833 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Don Rogerson writes:
> > Ross - The challenge I'd run into would be coordinating the blades so they
> > don't chop each other to pieces. Or I'd have to space them out quite a bit -
> > the rotor I used in my last try had a radius of about 16L.
>
> The chinook gets around this by having the rotors on different levels - the
> rear one is sufficiently high to ensure it can't hit the front.
That's not actually right. The chinook has a shaft connecting the rotors
keeping them in sync. It has to have one as rotor blades are very flexible.
Otherwise their would be a danger of the front rotors bending upwards and
hitting the rear ones if they bent downwards.
I have a great Mpeg of a large american helicopter cutting off it's own
refueling probe with it's blades while attempting to refuel. The probes are
extreamly long and protrude from the front. They are set as low on the
chopper as possble to minimise the risk to the probe from the rotor.
The probes have to be long so they can clear the rotor disc. They are
telescopic but still quite long when retracted.
The british Puma helicopter has very stiff blades and can therefore perform
loops.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
| (...) The chinook gets around this by having the rotors on different levels - the rear one is sufficiently high to ensure it can't hit the front. (...) Yes, enough power to lift a LEGO helicopter would definitely be a challenge 8?) ROSCO (21 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
