Is 'Airwolf' possible with our current technology? (Supersonic Helicopter)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of creating a supersonic helicopter like Airwolf, which is depicted as capable of reaching speeds over Mach 1. Participants acknowledge the limitations of current helicopter technology, particularly retreating blade stall, which restricts speed. Suggestions include turning off rotors during a 'turbo' mode and incorporating wings for forward thrust, though this would significantly alter the helicopter's design. The conversation highlights the challenges of transitioning between vertical and horizontal flight, as well as the potential for advanced materials and technology to overcome some of these obstacles. Ultimately, while the concept is intriguing, practical implementation remains highly complex and uncertain.
  • #51
phinds said:
Yes, but it would also fall apart rather quickly if it were not aerodynamic.
Not necessarily. Space capsules are not what is traditionally considered "aerodynamic" and they don't fall apart.

Of course, If any object is subjected to forces, from any source, greater to those it can withstand, it will fall apart. But that's not any kind of trait inherent to supersonic air travel.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
boneh3ad said:
No reshaping required. Anything of any shape can go supersonic with enough thrust.
At least "no reshaping required beforehand",
 
  • #53
IIRC, in early episodes, they warily disengaged rotor before lighting off the booster.
Later in series, even this sop to reality was ignored...
Still, disbelief politely suspended, 'Airwolf' was usually fun...
 
  • #54
phinds said:
What on Earth is your point with that statement? LOTS of airframes would go over mach 1 if reshaped and with no rotors, just jets engines.

Hell, if you reshaped me (it would take some work) and put a jet engine on me, I could probably go over mach 1.
Hahaha if you would crash and burn at least it would be a exiting way to go out...

What i really meant was the main fuselage is capable off that kind of speed right? Also the main fusalege is what would create the mach angle/ cone?
What happens to the rotors if they would stay inside the mach angle
 
  • #55
airwolflover said:
at least it would be a exiting way to go out...
I see what you did there... :wink:
 
  • #56
berkeman said:
I see what you did there... :wink:
😉
 
  • #57
So my question is this wat if we could keep the blades inside of the mach angle/cone created by the main fuselage some how (someting like the folding wings of a f14 tomcat) keeping the tips of the rotor blades inside the mach angle
Could we keep them spinning and use jet propulsion and stub wings with al the control surface of jet???
 
  • #58
airwolflover said:
What i really meant was the main fuselage is capable off that kind of speed
Yes and my point was, so what? LOTS of fuselages are capable of that kind of speed. But not helicopters
 
  • #59
phinds said:
Yes and my point was, so what? LOTS of fuselages are capable of that kind of speed. But not helicopters
Read my last post
 
  • #60
Asking a question that makes no sense doesn't make any point that I can see.
 
  • #61
phinds said:
Asking a question that makes no sense doesn't make any point that I can see.
Maybe someone else does seem to understand
But i really dont want to bring out the crayons to make you understand
 
  • #62
airwolflover said:
Maybe someone else does seem to understand
But i really dont want to bring out the crayons to make you understand
Please watch the attitude. Thanks.
 
  • #63
berkeman said:
Please watch the attitude. Thanks.
I appolagice
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #64
So if i stil may continue?...
The main fusalage is the main displacer/mass body.
It will create the mach angle (at mach 1 its around a 90 degree angle at mach 2 its around a 30 degree angle)
In most cases the rotor is mounted at the top helicopter and the blades sticking beyond the nose of the main fuselage
So even when going under the speed of sound the blades are past and out mach angle
And that fine i guess untill we reach certain speeds.
 
  • #65
After this speed the blades needs to be in the angle and if possible the tips need to trace the maximum allowed angle the be still a aficient control surface
 
  • #66
phinds said:
What on Earth is your point with that statement? LOTS of airframes would go over mach 1 if reshaped and with no rotors, just jets engines.

Hell, if you reshaped me (it would take some work) and put a jet engine on me, I could probably go over mach 1.
So if we did this head first rocket strapped and you would keep your arms at 180 degrees at mach 1 they would be at 90 degrees or 45 degree angle each and at mach 2 30 degree from the tip of your head or going of your center bodyline 15 degrees each side
 
  • #67
This has gone beyond ridiculous. I'm outta here.
 
  • Like
Likes Rive
  • #68
phinds said:
This has gone beyond ridiculous. I'm outta here.
Ah Come on i am trying to explain my point of vieuw nicely now 😲😳
 
  • #69
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
  • #70
airwolflover said:
So if we did this head first rocket strapped and you would keep your arms at 180 degrees at mach 1 they would be at 90 degrees or 45 degree angle each and at mach 2 30 degree from the tip of your head or going of your center bodyline 15 degrees each side
@airwolflover -- PF is not a playground where you can throw out ideas and personal speculation. This thread is in the technical forums, so all discussion needs to be traceable to the mainstream scientific literature. There have been some good posts in this thread over the years (and some not-so-good ones), but for this thread to be reopened it would require valid references. If you or others have such references, please send me a PM (click on my avatar and "Start a conversation"). Lacking that, the thread will remain closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Rive, renormalize, FactChecker and 3 others

Similar threads

I C Could a Jet Helicopter with Wings Fly at Supersonic Speeds?
Replies
4
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top