Can helicopters do loops and rolls?

Well, rigid or semi-rigid aside, can any helicopters take off, flip upside-down and fly upside-down for any lengths of time?

My WAG says it can’t be done because the propellers are designed to create lift, and I assume that the only thing in them to not create lift is gravity. As such, I don’t think those two things can be reversed. And even if this was not the case, I think it would take a pilot skilled beyond mere mortals to manage this ballancing stunt…


Link to the column, added by CKDextHavn: Can helicopters do loops and rolls?



Brian O’Neill
CMC International Records
rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html

ICQ 35294890
AIM Scrabble1
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill

[Note: This message has been edited by CKDextHavn]

Hmmm… I don’t follow the first 2 sentences of your 2nd paragraph. But I’d say you’re right about balance. Having the c.g. of the helicopter located that far above the propeller would make it very unstable. Just a small gust could screw you up.

The possibilty exists that I’ll be learning a lot more about helicopters in the near future. I’ll keep the Teeming Millions updated.

For the sake of accuracy, the little whirly thing on the top of a helicoptor is not a propeller, it is a rotary wing. It is actually shaped like an airfoil and the angle of attack is controlled by the pitch tubes. Those little poles near the hub.
The dynamics of rotary wing flight is a little too lengthy to go into here but it is not impossible to fly one upside down. Problem is the current birds barely have enough power to fly right side up and the pitch tubes are not configured for inverted flight.
So until someone at Bell decides there is a need to design one that can fly that way, we are stuck with the boring “rotor up” mode of flight.

Some helicopters can roll and do a positive ‘G’ loop (the MD500 can, I think), but I don’t know about sustained inverted flight. I think that would overstress the rotors.

By the way, a propellor is a rotary wing. Its blades have an airfoil shape, and the angle of attack (on a variable pitch propellor) is controlled from the hub.

The rotor-head who I spoke with about the original question assures me that current helicopters cannot sustain an inverted flight position. Several factors are involved, one of which is the forward thrust. Center of gravity, as mentioned previously, presumably has an impact as well.

Rich

Dhanson said,
“By the way, a propellor is a rotary wing.”

Damn I knew someone would call me on that. In response I can only say, not always. The propeller I was trying to differentiate could also be properly called a screw. That is, a modified inclined plane. Varying the pitch of such a machine does not make it an airfoil.
Before we enter into a debate over whether flat winged aircraft utilize the Bernoulli principal or if an inverted air foil will still function as such, let me clarify the point I was trying to make.
A) I was attempting to clarify to the teaming millions that a rotor blade resembles a wing more than a fan blade.
B) Helicoptors don’t fly upside down because no one has found any need to make them do so.
C) Early experiments found that ejector seats on helicoptors were a very bad idea.
Ok thats my 2c Flame away.

I am not sure about the stresses of full size helicopters but I can assure you that Radio Control helicopter (mechanicly equal)can loop an roll and even hover inverted. This is done by changing the pitch of the rotor blades in flight from positive to negative, I have even been told that an R/C helicopter is even slightly more stable inverted. I have never heard of a full size helicopter being able to do that.

Isn’t the fact that it would be fun good enough?

::laughing:: Are you serious!? :smiley:

Incidentally, I was researching the Blackhawk today. Looping the Blackhawk would be a serious violation of the maneuver spec, I noticed.

The answer is simple. A “propeller” is designed to create a lift, thereby “pulling” the helicopter’s body off the ground. In most helicopters, when the body is placed above the rotors, the weight will put too much stress on the rotors, and it will not be able to lift. However, remote-controlled and specially-designed fast, lightweight helicopters can perform a limited amount of aerial stunts.

Damn I will kick myself later for doing this. All I really wanted to do was post a little note to help people understand the mailbag answer.

Logic people… if the blades support the aircraft hanging under it, wouldn’t it stand to reason they would support the same load sitting on top?
The trick here is the blades could flex enough to strike the airframe, hence the rigidity issue. Putting stress on the rotor will not diminish its lift.
Flying inverted would require more power than the normal method because of the pitch required. (laymans terms, aeronautical engineers feel free to elaborate)As I stated before most helicoptors have only enough to move themselves and their cargo with little to spare for stunt flying. The power to weight ratio on a model chopper tends to be better suited for acrobatics, they are toys after all.

The answer may be simple but it is not “the propeller is too stressed to create a lift” Nor would inverting it change the dynamics from pulling to pushing.

As far as over-engineering them for fun, the primary customer is the military and they are not known for their sense of humor.

Actually a downward launching ejector seat was consided then dropped for many reasons, primarily cost. It was a joke of course, and I did note the toungue in cheek nature of the questions.

Ejector seats: Maybe I’m still missing a joke here, but I’m pretty sure I heard about them actually being implemented. The helicopters that have them throw off their rotor blades first.

Can anyone confirm or refute this?

EvilGhandi:

Uh…I hope you realize I was kidding. I did figure you were kind of joking about the ejector seat thing, but thanks for elaborating.

I thought the difference between a propeller and a rotor was that a propeller spins on an axis parallel to (pointing the same way as) the direction of travel, whereas a rotor spins on an axis perpendicular (at right angles) to the direction of travel.

Hence the thing on the front of a small airplane is a propeller, but the thing on top of (and the thing in the back of) a helicopter is a rotor.

(Plus, helicopter rotor blades change their pitch continuously through different parts of the cycle. Propellers ain’t smart enough to do that.)


I’m not flying fast, just orbiting low.

The Blackhawk/Seahawk/whatever wouldn’t be able to loop or roll. A modern attack helicopter (the Apache, for one) is designed to perform anti-air as well as anti-armor roles, and can pretty much do everything a jet fighter can do, except go faster than 350 kph or fly upside down.

Propellors create thrust in exactly the same way that wings and helicopter rotors do. They move a mass of air, causing an opposite force that provides lift, thrust, or whatever you need. The only reason that a propellor is a ‘screw’ is because the aircraft is moving in the same direction as the lift. A helicopter rotor is a ‘screw’ when the helicopter is climbing.

Strainger, Yep I knew you were kidding, I was just giving you a little poke in the ribs.

TheIncredibleHolg, As far as I know they were a failure. The design I am familiar with used an explosive bolt that would separate the blade spar from the hub. In theory the blades would then go sailing off on their merry way as the pilot ejected to saftey. In practice the blades didn’t come off at the same time. One blade aways hung on a fraction of a second longer, this would throw the aircraft into a drastic spinning tumble. The damn things also had a habit of coming off when they weren’t supposed to as well, like the one that threw a blade through our hanger door. We were field testing a carbon fiber composite (early stealth technology) blade with the explosive realease, presumably if the tests succeded they would then design ejectors seats. Typical ass backwards engineering, If I recall we crated the whole lot up and sent them back to Bell after a week. This was almost twenty years ago but as far as I know the whole idea was abandoned, who knows?
The standard method for dealing with a mechanical failure is called autorotating. The blade pitch is adjusted so the fall will cause it to accelerate, at the last minute the pilot pulls the collective (all blades pitch) control and the inertia in the blades create enough lift to negotiate a safe (if hard) landing.

dhanson,
“Propellors create thrust in exactly the same way that wings and helicopter rotors do.”
Not if the year I spent in school learning flight theory and mechanical systems is relevent. Wings do not create thrust, they create lift. Admittedly, a technical difference but one an engineer should be able to appreciate. Really now, do you want to debate this?

Thanks, EvilGhandi. I know about autorotation, but I can imagine situations where it wouldn’t work, e.g. if the rotor gets stuck or the blades fall off or the aft rotor (or whatever it’s called in English) screws up.

Has anyone ever considered blowing off the rotor as a whole to avoid those balance problems? Or to eject the seats sideways? But I suppose if the helicopter is about to crash, balance is a general problem and up, down, and sideways are relative terms…

So, what’s the difference between lift and thrust, other than that one is perpendicular to the force of gravity?

The main differences between a propellor and a wing have to do with Reynold’s number and the high velocity of the propellor compared to the wing on most aircraft. But they both function in the same way, using the same principles.

Ahh, yes I did know I would kick myself for getting in to a debate on a tech matter. But since I am here Might as well jump in…
At the risk of pissing you off even more (I seem to have that effect on people, alas) note that nowhere in my posts do I state a propeller can not be an air foil and I even hinted that a wing is not necesarily one. I simply pointed out that a propeller and a wing were not the same thing.]
To clarify this point I will post an exerpt from A Brief History of Aerodynamics, Chapter 2: Why propellers are not wings.
Ok, it’s not from a book, I wrote it, half to irk you half to amuse you. While it is satirical and historicly inaccurate, technicly it is near mark… well close enough to make my point I hope.

Warning Long stupid post to follow:

Ok Sherman, set the way back machine for “times of yore”. Here we see our friend Thag trying to get his sheep up a steep incline to a lush field of grass. Helicoptors not having been invented yet, Thag is forced to come up with another way to lift them, “Hmmm,” thinks Thag. “I’ll bet that if I Increase the horizontal distance to the top, it will rerduce the amount of power required to a point where the sheep can simply walk up themselves.” “I shall call this new invention The Ramp.” Little did Thag know, he had just laid the foundation for the machine that would eventually allow men to soar as the birds do. Meanwhile, off in the distance, Thag’s frieng Og the wood splitter was pounding on a log with his rock. He looked upon Thags new invention and a wave of insight washed over him as well. “If I reduce the surface area of the leading edge of my rock, there will me less friction as it enters the log.” “Also, if I taper the horizontal plane by a few degrees it will spred the log apart gradually over its surface thereby reducing the amount of force reqired to split this here log.” Eventually the tribal shaman looked upon these two new wonderful innovations, declared them to be “travesties against nature” and ordered the two men stoned.
Fast foward a few zillion years, but still in the time of yore. We find a robe clad Archemedies faced with a quandry. It seemed all the rivers were down hill from his house and water flowed down hill. Having since re-discovered the ramp and wedge designs by studies of cave paintings near the city, Archemedies had already implemented the carry the bucket up the ramp method. Being the sort who was not satisfied with “good enough” he set out to improve his ramp. “If a ramp can carry sheep uphill, why not water?” thought he. I’ll bet if I wrap a ramp around a vertical axis and rotate it, water will flow uphill." His idea was met with ridicule but he was undaunted. After years of experimentation and endless modifications he finally produced a machine that would make water flow uphill. " Eureka!" he exclaimed, “I shall name it The Screw.” However all the years of endless failure had left him quite mad and he was unable to explain how his device worked. The clerics of the era eyed it suspiciously as a product of the underworld and all the other townspeople were just too plain freaked out by it to use it. Archemedies died a blithering, and very damp madman.
Once more hit the fast foward. This time a little past the time of yore but still a while back. Here we see some Italian dude named Bournelli. He too had a quandry. All the other scientists had cool experiments that threw sparks and and made noise and were really fun to watch. They also got all the chicks. So he hatched a plan, digging out his old dusty book on water screws he set out to finish where archemedies left of. That is explain how these infernal things worked and forever end the stoning of scientists. That surly would make him a babe magnet. So he set out. He got some cool water tanks and put colored water in them. His theory was the reason they worked so well was because they were longer on one side than on the other. After fiddling with a wedge and a few other shapes he settled on a shape sorta like an elongated capitol D. Sinking it into the cool tanks then setting the colored water in motion, he took out all his fancy scientific looking stuff and measured. He measured the speed of the water and the pressures on each side of his shape. “Oila,” he exclaimed, "the pressure on the curved side is lower than the pressure on the flat side. Writing all the findings down in huge equations, he concluded, "these buggers work by swirling around a pool of math. Unfortunately all his scientist buddies thought this was just silly furthermore, the colored water had stained his hands a grusome shade of blue. So he got neither the acclaim of his peers nor did he get the chicks. He died alone and pennieless in a bizzare stoning mishap.
Fast forward to the present era. Mankind is in a race to make something that will fly. Various things are tried, archemedies style screws are attached to carrige bodies and various flapping things attempted. A couple of guys named the Wrights figure, “that Bournelli guy was just plain nuts, a propeller works just like a boat propeller, it pushes the air behind it and thats how it goes.” So they attached a boat propeller to a giant kite and got aloft. Thus sparking the debate among flight theroists that continues to this day. The story goes on to say how the church proclaimed the flier “the work of the devil” and later when the brothers died in a crash, they said “See? told ya.”

The moral is, well there is no moral eccept maybe scientists still get stoned, rock stars still get all the chicks and if you think to hard about one thing you will go nuts.

Someone said that if the whirly-thing-on-top can hold up a helicopter when it’s on top then it must be able to support it from underneath. This is not so. I can hang from a rope but I would not try standing on one. Not all things are reversible.

Also, has anyone else noticed how bendy the aforementioned whirly mechanism is when it is stopped? It is obviously meant to have a higher pressure below it than above it. It is possible that the high speed of whirlyness would keep the whirler straight but it is also possible that when flying upside-down it would just not be able to support the pressure in that direction and curve towards the flying-machine. This would cause a loss of lift and make the flying-machine fall down and possibly hurt its operator as well as scare nearby livestock and elerly people.