Title pretty much sums it up, could a chinook that has only one functioning rotor still be able to fly, at least to a safe to moderately unsafe landing.
This is a chinook:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/CH-47_2.jpg[/img]
I seriously doubt it.
no, go back and learn physics again.
Never mind, just read the wiki page
[quote]The Chinook is powered by two turboshaft engines, mounted on either side of the helicopter's rear end and connected to the rotors by driveshafts. The counter-rotating rotors eliminate the need for an anti-torque vertical rotor, allowing all power to be used for lift and thrust. [b]If one engine fails, the other can drive both rotors.[6][/b][/quote]
[QUOTE=ThePunisher1;16134761]Never mind, just read the wiki page[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but if the rotary blade is blown clean off it won't matter. It'll only have one working one.
And if that happens I seriously doubt it'd be able to make a safe landing.
One rotor, no. One engine, yes.
Is it really so hard to figure this out yourself?
Just look.
One rotor for each side.
If the back stops, it's going to crash forwards. If the front stops, It's just going to tilt and fall backwards.
[QUOTE=mikeyt493;16134959]Is it really so hard to figure this out yourself?
Just look.
One rotor for each side.
If the back stops, it's going to crash forwards. If the front stops, It's just going to tilt and fall backwards.[/QUOTE]
Sort of,
If either rotor failed, the helicopter would spin uncontroably to the ground.
If the front one failed, it would spin uncontrolably and lean forward while crashing to the ground (maybe doing flips)
If the back one failed, it would spin uncontrolably and lean backwards while crashing to the ground.
It's pretty neat how if 1 engine fails, the other one supports it though.
Actually yeah I forgot to take into account that they're spinning at howmany hundreds revolutions a second :downs:
Well, it's good that they thought about that.
The reason it would spin is because it wouldn't get stabalised.
A helicopter can't go with just 1 strong rotor. It has to have a tail one or another one to support it.
eg. The Australian blackhawk that crashed into the carrier and lost it's tail; it spinned heaps and fell into the sea. With 1 rotor, it wouldn't have anything to stabalise itself.
Pretty bad death though if 1 got knocked out, spinning around alot while crashing to the ground.
Yeah. There's some new helicopter being developed by I think it's the Americans, that if a bird or something even smaller hits the propellers it will spin out of control :raise:
Why make it so dangerous?
I don't have a source right now.
With one rotor, no. That's why other helicopters have a rotor and a tail rotor. As phil977 said, rather unclearly, they are used in a manner in which they cancel each other's "urge" to spin the chassis around the axis that it's attached to it. if one fails, the inertia of the remaining rotor will, as newton's laws imply, attempt to keep it as still as possible, and as a result, spin the chassis also somewhat so that there's a balance
that said, it would technically fly. It'd drop soon though and couldn't land because it's hella hard to control from a spinning chassis, and at that, anything with something the weight of a chassis spinning eccentrically. Let alone land the copter with the chassis spinning and scraping the ground
No, the other rotor is to stop the helicopter from spinning around itself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
