Yeah, I know waterj. I’d pull out my U.S. Army field manual on aeronautics, but it’s packed away. (Yeah, I still intend to move!) Lots of equations in there to figure out lift. With the right angle of attack and enough power you can get a barn door to fly. But I wouldn’t want to try to land it on Everest! 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer *
**
With an ordinary parachute, wouldn’t the rarefied air at that altitude mean that your descent would take place at a speed greater than is safe?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer *
**
Yes.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by warmgun *
**
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer *
**
… and no. It has been done from near the summit down. Never from a jet onto the summit–at least, not until the next James Bond film.
Oops, missed that, sorry (and thanks)
Ok, I’m sidestepping the OP (economicaly viable to fly people to Everest), and getting to the more technical question: How to make a high altitude helecopter.
I think cotra-rotating rotors might help with wind issue. While one rotor is receding, the other is advancing.
(I’m thinking on the same axis, not like a chinook with two separate rotors)
The helecopter record was set in 1972? Obviously materials and engines have improved since then. (I couldnt find a “hover” record)
Maybe we can convince Steve Fosset to try this after he gets sick of balloons (first to land on Everest).
That is another option. Balloons have gone MUCH higher. But the wind issue would be tough. (according to http://records.fai.org/airships/absolute.asp airship altitude record is 5059m)
Brian
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. *
**
Couple of thoughts:
I can almost guarantee that if the cold war was still on and Russia said they could put a helicopter on the peak of Everest, We’d have one up there in about 2 yrs (give or take)! Believe this, If man wanted to build a machine to deposit you on the peak of Everest, we could definately do it.
I also find it interesting that no one thought it strange that it was worth the time, effort and money to build a craft capable of flying around the world with one fueling but to build something to save actual human lives gets a, “Would the lives saved justify the expenditure of millions of dollars?” I was under the impression, if you took a handfull of high-end rescues added them together, that’s just what you would have. In this case however, you would retain the ability to do again and again.
Regardless, being a climber, myself, and OT (off-trail) backpacker, I suscribe to the you-got-yourself-in,-you-can-get-your-own-ass-out! theory of resue. But I think my point stands given all the bleeding hearts out there.
Another thought, Since the OP states that he/she wants a chopper ride, and with current helicopters it just not possible, fecal_nugget, why not start a new thread along the lines of, " Is there any way I can get to the top of Everest (and back down alive) without actually climbing using a combination of existing technologies?". I bet you would get more answers that actually (wince) might work. I have a couple in mind, but they don’t go to the OP.
My sig actually works here! 
Which is basically what I said; that it probably could be done.
There are always people who want to set or break records. The Rutan team was one group with this goal. It comes down to “Because it’s there.” Rutan wanted to fly around the world unrefuelled. With the high-altitude helicopter there doesn’t seem to be anyone interested in designing and building it – at least no one who has the means. I mentioned the rescues because it’s a real justification to build such a machine. But the real reason to build one is for the challenge of doing it. And there isn’t anyone up to the challenge.
Anyone who takes risks should do so with the full knowledge of the consequences should something go wrong. Given that, I don’t think that a few rescues justifies the expense for a corporation or government to build a helicopter that can land on the summit.
As others have said here, the technical obstacles are considerable; but they’re not insurmountable. Right now there are no machines that will do the job. It will take someone like a Steve Fawcett (sp.?) or a Burt Rutan to design and build one. If they feel like it.
There seems to be no shortage of people with money who might pay for something like this, I’m thinking of the guy who spent $20 million to orbit earth. These people might not be in shape to physically climb Everest, but would have no problem coughing up the money to get to the top. Yes, it will be dangerous, but if such a machine could be built it would be a technological triumph, right?
JLA, you are dead on. I do not think governments should attempt this for the obvious reason in our litagus scociety every nincompoop would take a shot at Everest, fail, almost die, them try to sue if the rescue did not go well (which is guarenteed in a lot of cases), additionally it would cost taxpayers millions!
But maybe some record-minded soul (with the wherewithall) could give a hi-alt chopper record a shot.
The added bonus to this record is that you could re-coup some of your up-front cost by charging an arm and a leg for Everest rescues.
We’re neglecting to consider the fact that even if we could build such a helicopter, attempting a rescue off of Everest would be extremely dangerous to the crew, the machine, and the person being rescued. As I recall, most people who die on Everest due so due to lack of oxygen. They just run out of gas, lose the ability to think, and perish. How are you going to get a person like that, who can’t help you in any way, off of the mountain? Send down a rescue guy? Now you’ve got to design a machine that can carry at least three people, and probably at least five (someone to tend the winch, plus a co-pilot, and the guy you are rescuing).
And also as I recall, most of the deaths happen due to storms that spring up and clobber the climbers. You aren’t going to rescue anyone in a helicopter in the middle of a storm.
So it all sounds like a real long-shot anyway, and almost certainly not practical enough to warrant designing a craft capable of doing it.
But back to the design issue - I think using rotors might be a non-starter. The design requirement for a rotor that can hold a helicopter in hover at 30,000 ft. might make it too unweildy on the ground. The beast would be horribly vulnerable to winds, hard to hangar, etc. I think you’d have better luck building an airplane with vectored thrust or a rocket with throttleable engines like the DC-X. But then, it’s pretty hard on a climber when you blow your rocket exhaust or jet downwash all over him.
I also don’t necessarily buy the argument that we could just do it if we wanted - there are plenty of aviation records that have stood for a long, long time because we just can’t figure out how to do any better. Look at the U2 spy plane - it had HUGE wings, needed to jettison its landing gear on takeoff, had outrigger wheels on the wings to keep them from hitting the ground… Things just get very complex when you start hitting the extreme edges of our flight boundaries. It took 40 years after the development of the jet before Rutan built a plane to fly around the world, and he had to do it by building a fuselage that you had to lie down in because it was so small, huge wings that bent and flapped so badly that a wingtip was ripped off on takeoff, and the beast was so unstable that a great pilot could barely keep it in the air.
Care for another approach? Machine a tunnel inside the mountain and then install an elevator.
Yes, we’re talking about tunneling through approximately 12,000 feet of solid rock–the approximate elevation gain from base camp to the summit–but perhaps this is do-able, given a few billion dollars. Holes can be drilled from above, why not from below, provided modifications are made?
REFERENCE:
For those who care, the most challenging segments of the South Col Everest climb start with the beginning–the Khumbu Icefall–a field of ice blocks about 300-400 yards wide just above Base Camp. Once bypassed (which it could be by helo), then it’s a long slog over to the Lhotse Face, at which point you’re facing a long, hard climb up the ice wall all the way to the Yellow Band and then to the South Col. Just above the Col (26,000’ elev.), you reach the summit pyramid and treacherous shale outcroppings. Next comes the Balcony, and then a long, hard hump up to the South Summit. This section–especially between the SS and the Hilary Step–is the most treacherous part of the climb. It’s a knife-edge ridge with a two-mile fall on either side that offers basically zero chance of self-arresting should you trip. Starting in the mid-80s, this section was customarily secured with fixed ropes. Afterward, the Hilary Step awaits with a 40-some-odd vertical gain. (Sometimes, the rocks are almost completely covered with snow/ice.) After that, it’s a moderately steep climb past heavily corniced ridges and false summits to the true summit.
The North Col route is steeper, especially above the Second Step.
If you could parachute pre-acclimatized tourists onto the South Col at 26,000 feet during good weather conditions–and provide them plenty of airlifted oxygen–they would have a 3,000 vertical foot gain to the summit. A well-conditioned climber can cover this roundtrip in about 15 hours.
Aside from the safety of parachuting in, would this be an improvement over climbing the mountain, in terms of being able to handle the trek?
From what I’ve understood, part of the problem with climbing a mountain as high as Everest is that by the time you have acclimated and spend some time at really high altitudes, you’re generally in fairly poor condition. I wonder if acclimating in an altitude chamber for a few weeks and then getting to the upper camps faster wouldn’t help?
Agreed, i wonder if people have achieved this now? As in land on the peak.
Good thing the OP didn’t stick around, he’s be pissed everyone talked him out of it.
Dennis
Yeah except you could only do that if you were also an expert helicopter pilot. They stripped everything out of the copter to make it lighter including the passenger seating. So it’s still impossible for someone else to be taken up to the top in a helicopter as a passenger.
This is puzzling.
tsunamisurfer responded to this a few posts later with this:
Who in the hell is Boscibo?