Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
What are examples of 'wing' and power loadings of some typical light helicopters, and how to they compare to our light airplanes?
What are examples of 'wing' and power loadings of some typical light helicopters, and how to they compare to our light airplanes?
From the Swcheizer web site http://www.sacusa.com/products/pdfs/300C_TechData.pdf
For a 300C helicopter the main rotor diameter is 26.83 feet and max weight is 2,050 pounds and is powered with a 190 hp engine.
that would be a disc loading of 3.62 lbs / square foot. as a reference, my glider flies at a wing loading of 4 lbs / square foot.
This is quoted from the FAA "Rotorcraft Flying Handbook" faa h-8083-21 which is a free download on the FAA website.
"Disc loading of a helicopter is the ratio of weight to the
total main rotor disc area,"
From the Swcheizer web site http://www.sacusa.com/products/pdfs/300C_TechData.pdf
For a 300C helicopter the main rotor diameter is 26.83 feet and max weight is 2,050 pounds and is powered with a 190 hp engine.
What are examples of 'wing' and power loadings of some typical light helicopters, and how to they compare to our light airplanes?
How do they get away with that??
The blades can't be in more than one place at any one time!
(sounds like cheating to me!)
Honestly. If I pump 700lbs of fuel into an airplane, does that mean the hose is suddenly immovable from the weight? No...it doesn't get the credit of the whole 700lbs! It was only carrying 50lbs of fuel at any one time!
Must be an arbitrary calculation. Unless someone can come up with some convincing evidence.... (I await, with arms crossed, and a defiant visage!)
Steve! No change to the avatar yet?
Thanks will check it out. 'Oversimplification' may not be enough simplification...for me!
it doesn't make any more sense to compare disk loading with wing loading than it does to compare wing loading of an airplane with "thrust loading" of a rocket.
so....there is no way to compare helos to airplanes when it comes to wing loading?
Steve! No change to the avatar yet?
One big difference that probably has some effect here is that helicopter rotors don't have enough strength to support the weight of the ship by a long shot. It's the "centrifugal force" (i.e. inertia) of the blades that makes them hold their shape and when the vertical load increases they actually flex into a cone shape.
Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned that in turbulence with a positive g-load the blades form a little bit of a cone shape. With negative g-loads they form an inverse cone shape and you could hit the tail or tail boom.3. Why are negative g's so bad?
Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned that in turbulence with a positive g-load the blades form a little bit of a cone shape. With negative g-loads they form an inverse cone shape and you could hit the tail or tail boom.
2. Are there helos that address the rotor/boom strike issue by limiting cyclic or something? Seems odd that one can destroy the helo without exceeding g limits.
That's true too!Not to mention "unloading" the rotor disc and setting up some really bad juju.
Not to mention "unloading" the rotor disc and setting up some really bad juju.
Define "Bad Juju"...
thread creep
3 things I can't wrap my head around.
1. Why don't helos have a "keep body parts below this line" line for ingress/egress with rotors going. Considering all the warnings in today's world, it's sorely missing.
2. Are there helos that address the rotor/boom strike issue by limiting cyclic or something? Seems odd that one can destroy the helo without exceeding g limits.
3. Why are negative g's so bad?
It's amazing the blades don't suffer fatigue failure more often, if this video is what it purports to be (blade flex in flight of a helicopter rotor blade):