You have probably seen it a time or two. A helicopter comes straight at a car with the landing skid at windshield height. At the last moment the car swerves into the ditch.
Now it seems to me that in a car/helicopter collision, the guys in the copter would have a lot more to worry about than the guys in the car. Like being face planted rotor first into the ground.
I have also seen similar footage with a light plane which seems even worse since they can only fly so slowly.
Dennis T
Would the downwash from the prop blades affect the aerodynamics of the car and make it more difficult to control?
Yep, it’s pure Hollywood silliness, not to mention the routine violation of minimum altitude rules that ones sees in just about every film with a heli in it, basically so that the director can keep the heli in the same frame with all the ground action.
This absurd sequence from Tomorrow Never Dies (starting about 4:54 in), aside from being technically impossible, would be utterly insane for a pilot to try.
As a kid growing up in the 70s helicopter-car chases were a staple of 70s cop and PI shows. And even as a kid it occurred to me, *“What exactly is the helo going to do to a car?!” *Helicopters are inherently extremely unstable all the time, all the car would need to do was bump it to cause a potential crash. Better yet, unless the guys in the helo are shooting at you, just ignore them…
Are helicopters “crash rated” the same as cars? In a 65mph collision into a wall, would I rather be in the average modern sedan or in the average small helicopter? Just the initial collision, mind you and not the “falling out of the sky” bit.
Amusing side note: I typed that and thought “can helicopters even go as slow as 65mph?” before it dawned on me that they can hover so, yeah, probably.
Hah! “Who cares if we are ripping the rotor to shreds, look at all those people we are scaring…”
Dennis
Helicopters generally have seat weight limits (like Robinsons) or ‘crumple zones’ (which is why Hughes/Schweizer/Sikorsky 300s don’t have a baggage compartment in the cockpit) or seats with suspensions to protect the occupants in a crash – with the caveat that the crash is assumed to be a vertical one with low- or no horizontal speed. Crashing into something horizontally, you’re protected by a little plexiglass and a light aluminum frame. 
Incidentally, I was once told that the reason fighter/bomber pilots’ helmets have a ‘fixed’ liner, and helicopter pilots’ helmets have a suspension system, is because a fighter pilot ejects and a helicopter pilot rides it in. While a fighter pilot may experience some head-bumping during maneuvers, they’re generally not severe enough to require a suspension system. The pilot’s head needs to be protected from a possible single, hard blow, like a motorcyclist. Since the heli pilot rides it down, s/he is subject to multiple impacts from different directions as s/he falls through trees. So the helmet is suspended so that the head is isolated. True? Don’t know. But it makes sense to me.
There was a tv show way back when called “Whirlybirds” that had that scenario in just about every episode, iirc. Sky King did the same thing, only in an airplane. The guy in the car would always duck as the aircraft swooped down on him.
I think the Russians built a combat helicopter with ejection seats. In an emergency the main rotors were detached with explosive bolts a moment before ejection. Don’t know if it got beyond experimental, but it certainly didn’t catch on in general. Probably was most often not safer than ‘riding it in’…
[quote=“El_Kabong, post:3, topic:766411”]
Yep, it’s pure Hollywood silliness, not to mention the routine violation of minimum altitude rules that ones sees in just about every film with a heli in it, basically so that the director can keep the heli in the same frame with all the ground action.
This absurd sequence from Tomorrow Never Dies (starting about 4:54 in), aside from being technically impossible, would be utterly insane for a pilot to try.
[/QUOTE] And what about that "helicopter following the train into the tunnel" scene from the first "Mission: Impossible" movie?[quote=“El_Kabong, post:3, topic:766411”]
This absurd sequence from Tomorrow Never Dies (starting about 4:54 in), aside from being technically impossible, would be utterly insane for a pilot to try.
[/QUOTE]What do you mean technically impossible, clearly he was just compensating for an unseen 80mph headwind.
Helicopters do not work that way!
Maybe I just like that scene, but I don’t have a complete problem with it.
It was established that Kreiger was an expert pilot. And it wasn’t like he had a choice - if he didn’t follow it in, he would have killed himself hitting the tunnel entrance. So once he decides to go inside, might as well just keep going.
Still the airflow over the train would have been unpredictable. You’d have to have a quick, light touch on the controls. Eventually, you’d make a mistake and crash. But until then…
The bigger problem with the scene is the passing train. No one ever complains about the fact that the chunnel is two (three, actually) separate tunnels. The trains don’t pass each other. The preceding bow wave from the one train would probably knock the other train off the track! So being in the chopper when the other train passed would have been more than enough to wreck it.
Now flying so close as to cut someone with the blades is going too far. You couldn’t be that precise. And jumping on to the chopper to plant the gum is bad enough, but jumping back? puleeze!
I have to give them credit - the crash looked right. The airframe in the wreckage was right. Not like the plywood semi cab that blows up with the terminator inside, that looks nothing like a real truck.
“You just killed a helicopter with a car!”
Boy am I glad I never watched that movie!
Let’s go back to the realism of MI. Or Blue Thunder. Or Airwolf. Or…
I don’t think the helicopter had a choice; didn’t it have a hoist cable stuck to the train?
Similarly, a helicopter gets pulled into an overpass in Darkman after its hoist cable gets hooked to a surprisingly oblivious 18-wheeler with a surprisingly nonregulation latch of some kind on its roof.
Short version: Bank robber hijacks a truck, and manages to elude police until only the news helicopter knows where he is. So the helicopter descends until he’s blocking the truck from exiting a parking lot. The bank robber orders the truck driver to ram the chopper – the driver refuses. The standoff lasts long enough for police to arrive and put an end to the pursuit.
I think in that case, the helicopter would have come off worse in the collision; all it takes is for the rotors to strike the ground and then you have a real problem.
And yet they try and pull off that maneuver in enough films (28 Weeks Later, Planet Terror come to mind)
Just because a helicopter uses spinning blades to fly doesn’t mean it can use them offensively.
Badass Cow Takes Down Helicopter And Walks Off Like A Boss
If a helicopter loses a fight with a cow, what chance does it have against a car?
I’m such a nerd for technology and the TGV and the chunnel were things that I followed closely, and well… The TGV is an electric train which draws its power from overhead wires; so yeah, I was one of the few that laughed out loud when noticing that the overhead wires were missing and more so when the helicopter followed into the tunnel.
That was… impossible…
Oh, right. 
Of course. If one keeps his/her brain in the same setting as “Independence day mindless” the movie is really enjoyable.