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

In summary, Airwolf is a Mach 1+ helicopter with advanced weapons systems, but its speed is limited by the retreating blade stall and dissymmetry of lift. It is suggested that turning off the rotors could make it more feasible for supersonic flight, but there are still stability and design challenges to overcome. Some suggest a billion-dollar investment and advanced technology could make a supersonic helicopter like Airwolf possible, but others doubt its practicality.
  • #36
Dominic Santini said:
Well, the best we could possibly do for it would make it a rudimentary plane with very little surface control. It'd be functional; just wouldn't be as effective at dogfighting as planes would be. So, then the problem would be that we need to fill the time gap between folding the helicopter blades (it isn't going to be speedy-- the faster the rotors need to be, the bigger it also needs to get compensatingly so) with something to counter-act gravity with. I estimate that there may be three or four minutes of getting the rotors to cease rotation, and then another minute to fold it inwards. Perhaps less.
Finally, someone that understands aerodynamics and has relatively the same thought as me. The real problem will be those wings though. That's why nothing up to the osprey has succeeded. And the lift and forward flight engines are the same and mounted on the wings that rotate with them. If you put a real even small sized set of wings under a rotor, it either nullifies or destabilizes the lift from that rotor. As for the folding and storing of the rotors, the jet engines could provide the forward thrust while that took place, provided that while thing didn't destabilizes the flight characteristics of the aircraft. There is a crap ton of hurdles to get over to even begin building something that complicated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
boneh3ad said:
No offense, but I am reasonably sure that you don't know anything about supersonic or hypersonic flight, helicopters, or the challenges involved in designing such vehicles.
I think no one also did reasurch on mach angles created by the main fuselage and how blades would fit inside that angle/cone and as most of the blades stick past the fuselage they would be expost to even greater forces
 
  • #38
airwolflover said:
I think no one also did reasurch on mach angles created by the main fuselage and how blades would fit inside that angle/cone and as most of the blades stick past the fuselage they would be expost to even greater forces
So how fast can we get this helicopter to on its rotors until the wings will create enough lift to support the transition, how big would they need to be without interfering with normal hover mode then their is how is everything going to fit in a certain mach angle
 
  • #39
If you would take the hull of the comanche alone (reshape the nose and without rotors ) it would go like a misile over mach 1
 
  • #40
Dominic Santini said:
Well, the best we could possibly do for it would make it a rudimentary plane with very little surface control. It'd be functional; just wouldn't be as effective at dogfighting as planes would be. So, then the problem would be that we need to fill the time gap between folding the helicopter blades (it isn't going to be speedy-- the faster the rotors need to be, the bigger it also needs to get compensatingly so) with something to counter-act gravity with. I estimate that there may be three or four minutes of getting the rotors to cease rotation, and then another minute to fold it inwards. Perhaps less.
Then there is the question how big can we make the wings how much speed need to create enough lift.
Can we gain enough elefation to do maybe a nose dive transition to gain speed and time for the transition?
 
  • #41
airwolflover said:
So how fast can we get this helicopter to on its rotors
Probably about negative one miles per hour...
 
  • Haha
Likes Vanadium 50 and airwolflover
  • #42
Next to all this, the question is what are helicopters designed for what role do they need to fill.
Supersonische flight ? No we have jets to do that.
So what then?
The function that i read about in the comments that i would think would be best is the wispher or silent mode.
Does it need to faster than any helicopter on the battlefield? It sure does!
Does it need to go supersonic?
Nope!
 
  • #43
airwolflover said:
Does it need to faster than any helicopter on the battlefield? It sure does!
This is why the V-22 Osprey.
 
  • #44
airwolflover said:
Supersonische flight ? No we have jets to do that.
You're missing the point. Jets require long runways. The Harrier is what you're looking for, or as @Nugatory pointed out the Osprey.
 
  • #45
airwolflover said:
If you would take the hull of the comanche alone (reshape the nose and without rotors ) it would go like a misile over mach 1
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.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Astronuc and Bystander
  • #46
The CarterCopter referenced in Post #21 is the closest anybody has come to a stopped rotor helicopter yet. After over 20 years of development, they have not yet hovered more than 5 seconds, or got the rotor speed stopped. Their top speed is slower than current fast helicopters. The Wikipedia link in that post is still good, and does a good job of discussing the tradeoffs in slowed/stopped rotor fixed wing flying machines. More info, and the photo below, at the Carter Aviation website: https://carteraero.com/home2/. Note that their best L/D is 11, which is not conducive to high speed.
CarterCopter.jpg

But it has actually flown, so is not vaporware. It just has, at this time, no real world advantages over existing technology.
 
  • Informative
Likes DrClaude and phinds
  • #47
The Rotary Rocket orbital class rocket would have been a (very) supersonic helicopter by some definition of helicopter. However they (and all the other private rocket companies around at the time) lost funding in the early 2000s financial crisis so they only did four test flights of the concept, none of them supersonic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_Rocket
 
  • #48
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.
No reshaping required. Anything of any shape can go supersonic with enough thrust.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #49
boneh3ad said:
No reshaping required. Anything of any shape can go supersonic with enough thrust.
Yes, but it would also fall apart rather quickly if it were not aerodynamic.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top