BoredCop t1_ix8gobv wrote
You don't really slow the rotor, changing its speed would likely bring other problems as well. You change the pitch of the blades instead, for the same effect but in a more controllable fashion with quicker response than changing RPM.
As for doing that to compensate for weight reduction while firing, I suspect it is irrelevant because they're actively steering the aircraft all the time anyway and the weight difference isn't that great. Plus it would usually be bad tactics to shoot while absolutely motionless, you'd be an easy target if hovering.
rankorcankor t1_ix8mejz wrote
Pretty much the above. Helicopter controls have a lever called the collective (as in collective pitch), usually with a throttle built into the lever to allow the pilot to compensate for changes to the rotor RPM caused by increasing/decreasing drag from altering the pitch. But most modern civil helicopters have various systems that would also handle keeping the RPM static without pilot intervention. I imagine military helicopters would always have those systems or even more advanced ones.
DLBaker t1_ixbgbs1 wrote
Weapons and ammunition is heavy and most helicopters have a stores jettison avaialble if they're low on power. The Apache helicopter as an example has two Turbines to carry everything. If you're down to one engine and need to enter a hover for any reason you may need to drop stores. If you're on the ground with one engine and a rolling liftoff is not available you won't get off the ground unless you jettison some or all your ammo. Missiles, rockets, etc.
The short answer is yes, as you fire, you will reduce your collective as needed. Ammo is heavy.
eye_spi t1_ixbh9w1 wrote
>If you're on the ground with one engine and a rolling liftoff is not available you won't get off the ground unless you jettison some or all your ammo.
How does a rolling lift off help a helicopter?
TinKicker t1_ixcdm9q wrote
It’s called “translational lift”.
By moving forward, clean (undisturbed) air begins flowing over the rotor blades, greatly increasing their efficiency.
eye_spi t1_ixci2nw wrote
Thanks, that's a very clear explanation.
[deleted] t1_ixbhhyt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixbond3 wrote
[removed]
GarbageTheClown t1_ixbozcq wrote
Rough guess is that in a hover you are fighting your own prop wash / ground effect, which would reduce lift.
tim36272 t1_ixc5rzp wrote
The rotor acts as a wing in forward flight, providing some of the lift. That was actually wrong: it’s because the vertical speed of the “fresh” air you’re flying into during forward flight is 0 (in the absence of external forces) whereas in hover the air above and below the rotor is already moving down, thus it takes more energy to accelerate that air further.
Same reason it takes less power to fly forward than to hover.
[deleted] t1_ixd9sbh wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments