Not really, the autorotation makes the blades behave like a plane, so you can also glide. You need blades to be heavily damaged for it to fall down like a stone, same with planes when the wings fall off.
Comment on Price gouging
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Helicopters freak me the fuck out.
At least planes can glide if the engines die.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 day ago
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I’ve never once seen a helicopter crash that looked anything at all like it was falling with a parachute.
BanMe@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s because the helicopter crashes you’ve seen were the ones where something catastrophic happened, like a midair collision or a pilot error. That’s what makes the news, not the safe landings where engine failure has occurred.
Magnum@infosec.pub 1 day ago
The crashes you seen had their tail damaged.
RattlerSix@lemmy.world 1 day ago
An auto rotation isn’t a crash. An auto rotation can end up as one but usually looks like a normal landing
mwproductions@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Also, a plane gliding to a landing still needs a pretty large, clear area to touchdown and come to a stop safely. Helicopters landing using autorotation need far less space.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Not entirely,auto rotation and so,but yeah,helicopters are just machines working really hard not to explode at random
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 1 day ago
What’s the term I heard about helicopters? Something along the lines of:
A helicopter is 1000 moving parts all conspiring to kill you? Something like that.
ccunix@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I like James May’s description
A plane elegantly uses the laws of physics to fly. A helicopter just beats them into submission.
Or something like that.
TheDoozer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I have flown in helicopters most of my career, and we regularly did auto-rotation emergency drills, where we cut the engines output back (to simulate dual engine failure) and then “glide” to a particular spot, using the air pressure from descent to drive the blades.
With a good pilot, you just kind of go zero-g for a second or two, and the. A somehwat faster than normal descent, followed by a big flare (tail down, nose up, like a diving bird pulling back and fanning its wings out) at around 80 feet, then quick (less comfortable) drop to the deck.
With a good pilot, it’s mildly uncomfortable, with a mediocre pilot, it’s some back pain and some extra maintenance inspections, but you aren’t crashing.
EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
100% well said. However, imo the biggest problem is doing this when failure actually happens over any terrain that isn’t flat for several hundred yards.
Engine failure while flying through mountains doesn’t provide enough room to descend and pull back up.
So recovering from critical failure is very dependant on the enviroment the pilot is flying in. Just wanted to add that on, as Helos are imo, basically designed to enter and exit the worst environments out there, making it difficult to counter mechanical issues even with proper training.
TheDoozer@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Our pilots, with training, regularly can get to inside a circle patch of flat land 100 ft in diameter. They generally pick a very specific spot on the runway (like the numbers) and then aim to end up there. And they practice straight down, 90 degree left, 90 degree right* 180 degree, and on occasion 360 degree (for when the spot you want is directly below when your engines fail, and feels like you are corkscrewing to your doom). Obviously practice is different than an actual emergency, but I felt confident the pilots could get us down safely in the event of a dual engine failure.
So honestly if it’s over mountainous areas, I’d rather be in the helicopter looking for a place to hard land than a fixed wing aircraft (that needs a runway or at the very least a long grassy field with no obstructions).
EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Good point between the two! I’d prefer being in neither if there was engine failure over mountainous terrain haha.
Imo, the biggest difference between the two is that fixed wing aircraft have a lot more time available to them to correct for a case of complete engine failure. While it would still be an issue over mountainous areas, the plane would certainly have more time to glide and find a place to land imo. (Assuming it’s at a higher altitude than a helo would normally travel). Not that this would make it easier or anything. Just that the total amount of time you have to correct for an engine failure is far greater in a fixed wing craft then a helo, generally speaking.
That being said, the training you’re mentioning is excellent, and I have nothing but respect for Helo pilots. If anything, they have to be more dialed in than fixed wing pilots as there’s a lot more that can go wrong quickly. So likewise, the training needed to be a good Helo pilot far exceeds the training needed to be a good fixed wing pilot. (At least imo). To that end, I would 100% rather be in a Helo with engine failure as it’s far more likely the pilot actually knows what to do, and is trained for it too 😉