Helicopter Ejection Seats - via Main Rotor area

In some battle situations you may not want to land safely. Unstrapping your Soviet ass from a seat as a bunch of enraged Afghan women close with knives glinting doesn't sound too good to me. Even with AK47 packed into the seat, you ain't gonna have a nice ending.

Just poking fun ronald. No offense intended.

OK! No offense taken...comrade!

I have to learn to live with difference of opinions; and also have a very short fuse. Has caused problems in the past. Maybe I'm becoming a GRUMPY OLD MAN!

Thank You

OK. How about this... The crew compartment and passenger section is ejected as a package forward. In essence, the helicopter loses its nose and the interior passenger compartment. Once clear of the helicopter, it deploys parachutes?

How about a separate passenger compartment. The flight crew would be stuffed, but people could be saved.

Fresh off the grill from Wikipedia!!!

Shhh... they might try sue me ! DIGAF ? No.

Can't find a picture to pinch, but I did once see footage of a Russian Helicopter that could turn upside down ( and I don't mean crashing). Anybody heard of this ?

Yes!

!

You just wanted to make this all reach two pages didn't you !

Somwhere is a picture of a Madonna like figure, the child she holds has a helicopter like toy in it's hands. Can't find the thing. Does it ring any bells ? I have it in a book somewhere but can't be bothered to find and scan it. (copywrite infringement and all that )

One day, I was standing by a helicopter as it was winding up to take off. I can tell you it was a freaky experience! I was expecting the rotors to come off at any second!!!

Does that explain your apparent lack of body, and bouncing ?

At the time I thought it was!!!

Time to lose the rotational mass, over the cabin?

It's not necessary.

Ever heard of a frictionless, inertia-less drive rotor?

http://www.inertialessdrive.co.nz/

The old links for modern air craft concept, have been removed for some reason...

This thing would allow a brick to stay straight, but can you provide the lift?

Zero gyroscopic behavior, if this is correct; right?

Central fan assembly and the overhead blade is internalized, but faster.

Collateral damage on the ground may be high until the bugs get worked out properly.

All the fly away ideas for high speed components are worthy of some work, though.

hey how do you manage to insert those gifs into your thread...enlighten us...

perhaps inverting the helicopter and ejecting from bottom would be developed ..just a thought..

If you have an animated gif, click on the green camera above. Browse to your gif, then open it and hit the submit button on the CR4 dialog box. From there, it will usually appear in the upper left-hand corner. All you have to do is drag it to where you want it to show.

Ya know, I'm really beginning to doubt whether blown off rotors would really pose much threat to anyone on the ground. The reason why these thing work so well to produce lift is because it takes so much energy to drive them through the air. Once released from the driving force, it would seem to me that they would lose all their energy (rotationally and horizontally) very quickly, and would not be that big of a threat for people as they flutter toward the ground.

I guess what I'm saying is that the shape that makes these blades aerodynamic would work against non-driven blades, and would position themselves into the air such that they'd lose their energy very quickly.

When we build the prototype model, you're elected to stand in the immediate vicinity to either catch, or dodge, the remains of the rotors.

I kinda like the idea that someone posted earlier that we invert the copter, then eject out the (previous) underside. Not a bad idea. Might save lives that are ejected, but those down below- "LOOK OUT!!!" or "FORE!!!"

You're talking about sending an unmanned inverted copter (if such a thing is possible) into the ground under power.

I'm guessing that the explosive force to detach the rotors doesn't have to be very powerful. So, outward momentum is going to die off fast. Also, once the radial drive is released, the rotors will have no impetus to drive through the atmosphere. Think about it... All these actions are self-dampening! What you're going to get is two (possibly three) planks of carbon fiber fluttering down through the air.

...and some poor soul on the ground becomes kebab ! Maybe a seat could be designed to take a sort of s-shaped trajectory after blasting through the floor. I'd prefer to hover in a Harrier, but don't think they'd be much good for things like air-sea rescue.

Think about it... These blades have to be rigidly held in their angle of attack to provide lift. Once blown off the power source, they're going to turn straight up and act as flat paddles in the wind. This means they're going to lose any energy they possess in an instant!

... but they're still gonna land ? Chances of being hit if on the ground are minimal. I think I'd generally go with the 'blow the blades' option on this one, but I have doubts about such a system being possible to engineer. Hows about the sideways tilt and eject I suggested earlier ?

If the helicopter crashes with blades intact, they're still going to do one hell of a lot of damage, and they'll be under-power. Didn't you ever see the footage from the scene of the Twilight Zone, the movie where Victor Morrow and two kids get it!

Why do I envision a real time game of huge lawn darts, whenever you guys suggest the fly away rotors?

How about little parachutes for the blades? They are very expensive, in and of themselves. Might be worth it just to save the blades for re-use and certification, if not damaged by the fall. There has got to be someone, somewhere who would re-use them, if still within spec.

I am more interested in designing a small helicopter with horrible emergency response time and a belt which can break during flight, easily. They must be cheap and we shall sell them as "affordable" and "not too dangerous". What do you think?

If the copter is going down, so are the blades no-matter-what. Have you ever seen footage of what happens when the blades hit the ground under power?! I'd rather take my chances with them in free-fall!!!

Do you remember what happened on the set of Twilight Zone the Movie?

There have been some good ideas and suggestions proposed, thank you.

Further suggestions are always welcome.

Just so you, the gentle reader know, I have been trying to work out a method of safe ejection from helicopters, for pilot and passengers, for over 50 years, since I first saw one flying.

As has been pointed out, the gyroscopic effect of the main rotor blades is a large problem, and has sometimes not been understood completely.

The single main rotor system is going to require more thought, for a safe exit.

And if the main rotor is 'blown away by an explosive charge", that rotor or its parts still have to go somewhere, with the great stored kinetic energy.

The problem of the main rotor coming off the craft has always been a problem - In the earlier days of helicopters, the main rotor was retained by a large nut, commonly referred to as the "Jesus Nut", because if that went, there was no hope.

Rear rotors are always a bother too, just as you thought you were safe, around arrives that rear rotor, and hamburger time......

Twin main helicopters see:

Military MH-47E Special Operations Aircraft (SOA) is a derivative of the Boeing CH-47 Chinook:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/h-47.htm

These hold better opportunity for exit in an emergency situation, but now complicated by the twin rotors coming downwards.

All contributions and ideas are appreciated, thanks....

I really don't think that the rotors have "great stored kinetic energy!" If they blow off, they instantaneously lose any radial energy. Some outward energy is still there, but I'm guessing that travel through the atmosphere is going to dampen that, as well. What you're left with is a big (carbon fiber?) rotor fluttering down to earth... Has to be better than a rotor hitting the ground under power. Innocent bystanders at helicopter crashes usually get severely hurt by flying pieces of blade - so wouldn't a blade without energy and free-falling be better?

If you're talking a combat situation, what the hell!!! Blow the damn rotors!!!

Don't give up your dream!!!

Would this help ? http://www.nuenergy.org/iw/2005/zorzi2005.htm

No. That dork has been sending out hand-drawn catalogs of the worst surplus stuff for years. The only thing that could get him flying is a trebuchet, where he sat at one end while his store's crap was dumped in the other end!!!

Thank you Kris, for the weblink.

My interest was immediately drawn to the written part:

"The recent book released by Callum Coats titled "The Energy Revolution" has opened the door to much research in this vast field. But still to decipher Victors meanings of repulsion energy took many hours of study. And I still continue that research even today."

The drawings were interesting too.

That system could work, but not within the present physical laws, on the Planet earth.

Kind Regards....

I think the dude does 'anti-gravity as well !

The helo blades warp and flex at such high torsion, there is almost no way to determine the exact state of the flex, as vortexes wreak havoc during spin and angular deviation of the air frame. Guessing at what point the blades will be and in what state, is quite difficult to accurately determine, at all times.

To be honest, I'm still stuck on your suggested use of the word "need"; rather than "want", in your moniker, sir.

Your statement "reads" as if, only your desires are worthy of development, in your good time.

How utterly self sustaining!

"We", may in fact, "need" these ideas to flourish, albeit in some specialized capacity.

However, if you don't "want" the inventions, (or "us" explaining them to anyone); what "we" have is something else entirely, isn't it?

Hello Moto,

"To be honest, I'm still stuck on your suggested use of the word "need"; rather than "want", in your moniker, sir.

Your statement "reads" as if, only your desires are worthy of development, in your good time.

How utterly self sustaining!

"We", may in fact, "need" these ideas to flourish, albeit in some specialized capacity.

However, if you don't "want" the inventions, (or "us" explaining them to anyone); what "we" have is something else entirely, isn't it?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bit of misunderstanding there, Moto.

Although you say so, you have not actually taken issue with my Moniker, because my Moniker is my Username = Sparkstation (SparkY for short)

Please read my "Signature Line" text again, unchanged as:

""The number of Inventions increases faster than the need for them at the time" - - SparkY".

I did not write my need, but the need.

A short study of History over the last several thousand years, shows that in most cases, as an invention is made, there is not a practical use for it at the time it was actually invented.

Often this is because other technology has to catch up with the idea.

Example: Submarine, helicopter, differential gear, machine gun - All were designed/invented by Leonardo Da Vinci, but there was no need for any at the time of Da Vinci, because other technologies of metallurgy, gear hobbing, pressure vessels, glass development, cordite, nickel-jacketed lead bullets etc still had to be invented.

Splitting of the atom, by Rutherford, from near Nelson, some 250 miles from where I live- The need for that discovery was likewise not available, because of technological limits.

Thus there was no need, because such things could not be used.

Please feel free, Moto, and all gentle readers of this great CR4 Forum, to invent and use anything you please.

No person has to await my permission, the World does not run according to my "wants", and I am genuinely sad you would think so, because I am indeed not that sort of person.

Does that clarify for you?...I truly hope so........

OH NO! YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT THAT EASILY...

Just messin' with ya! Actually, you've been one of the better posters on this forum, and I for one am glad to have you aboard!

Hello vermin,

When I started reading your above reply, I received a dreadful shock, then realized your graphic was a picture of either your alter-ego, or a modified pomegranate.

Thank you for welcoming me....

I, too, Sparky would like to welcome you aboard. Your posts have been most informative (and entertaining). While I may not often reply, please be assured I do read and ponder.

Keep up the good work. I'm just wonderin' if #144 was ol' uncle Clyde?

Who? What? Whose the target of your ire?!

It was jest. I too am very inspired by your work and thoughtful replies.

As an engineer at heart, I am constantly frustrated by the time frame and the slow progress we all strive to see advancement move.

It humbles me to see less than desirable engineering get funded, while worthwhile projects take the back seat or never get off the ground.

Sometimes it seems like we as a society should contract instead of expand, so we can re-think our mutual direction.

The Robi, which is where I was making my grief, has such poor cyclic reaction time, at around 1/10 of a second, during belt failure; it sounds like this question was purposed to frustrate the minds into un-thinkable process. A never ending inundative - conundrum, of sorts. Knowing these details and how dangerous critical failure becomes fits crooked into my mind.

There has got to be some way to move ahead without allowing money to over-ride quality at every level. Here we are discussing ejection seats while the reaction time has been cut in half and is accepted as AOK???

Are we so far apart on defining quality, from the money which funds progress?

Hi, Moto,

I think I'm not alone in getting confused by your posts - even without reading past the first line. You appear to be using the "Reply to forum thread" button, which is fine for new input, but not much good for replying to another post.

Please either: A) Reply to another post, or B) State to whom you are directing your reply.

Thanks John, I had the same thoughts about the post.

I was referring to SparkY. Nothing personal, just a bit of conflicting signals, was all I was attempting to process.

Didn't mean to ruffle the groups feathers too much, or post out of order. It's the question you ask and your stated endeavours seem a bit in conflict.

1) looking for solutions to save lives during helo accidents... ejection seat, got it...

2) It sounds like the responses are not overly concerned with reaction times being reduced, as accidents are relatively low percentage, compared to deadly auto accidents... got it...

3) SparkY's "Motto text" was perceived as a statement of accuracy, and quoted by himself... OK, I get the statement as an opinion of how ideas get the back burner until sometimes years later... got it...

So my thinking is...

4)If there was such an invention, which helped lower the deaths during aviation, would it be considered undesirable or unwanted, because it's before it's time????

It sounds like the person who started this thread is already given to this conclusion by his motto... and may have been for 50 years...

My apologies for being so darned geometric with my associations. I tend to confuse most linear thinkers. One just cannot understand why the question as asked by SparkY, on this thread; and thoughtfully comprehend a solution would be accepted or even implemented, if one was purposed and deemed useful; under the terms of his very own "Slogan / Theme Text", used after his name.

It sounds like he's Jo King about finding a solution, in a manner of thinking.

Summery:

Wouldn't it be more effective and sustainable, (especially where lives are concerned), to produce vehicles with improved...

1) reaction time

2) Glide ratio

3) air frame / air bag deployment system

4) fire retardant activation

5) redundant safety systems

6) possibility of escape hatches, (hopefully sooner than the next 50 years or going without them altogether).

Shouldn't these be pondered all together, rather than ejection by itself; which appears to be a near futile dilemma ?

With a slogan like the one you are using, (which sounds rather defeatist, in my observation), I'm not understanding how you would expect a good answer to be incorporated, should there be a good one, under the terms and perception of your moto. That's all I was eluding to. It doesn't add up to me.

Thanks for your patience with my associative mind.

It looks like there is no good answer to your question, (the one this thread is titled about), and you would be OK with it being employed years from now, should one exist.

More so, you've already accepted it cannot be done, for a good long while, (or you may never accept it, because you purposed it, as a question here on this thread).

Maybe I'm reading the black instead of the white in-between the letters, and if so I apologize, to some of you.

It gives me crossed signals as to your mindset, is all I wanted to point out to you; but them who am I to read into it so far...

Has anyone posted this yet ; http://youtube.com/watch?v=ixDn8Ak4kz8&feature=related

Now that's truly amazing!

I suggest that the aviation industry create a squirrel firing gun that shoots directly into the rotor blades. The second we don't hear "SQUEEK SPLAT" we jettison the cockpit!

Most beautiful!!! Hahaha

Jus' make sure dem things y'r fyrin at is GREY!

Happy New Year EveryBody.

Ya know, after giving this thread a lot of thought, what would be worse? A sudden beheading or waking up in a mass of twisted wreckage and being handicapped for the rest of your life?

I've tried both - no preference.