Single Rotor Versus Coaxial Rotor Lift

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether a second coaxial rotor generates additional lift for a helicopter or if its contribution is primarily due to eliminating the tail rotor, allowing more engine power for lift. One viewpoint argues that the second rotor's lift contribution is minimal, as the first rotor already accelerates air significantly, limiting the second rotor's ability to add lift. The counterargument asserts that both rotors generate lift by applying equal torque and working on air, thus both contribute to lift generation. However, it is suggested that the overall lifting power between coaxial and standard configurations may not differ significantly, as power distribution varies. Coaxial rotors provide stability and efficiency advantages, especially in certain applications, despite their complexity.
Kalagaraz
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
I'm having a tiny debate with someone over whether a 2nd coaxial rotor generates additional lift for a helicopter by itself or the helicopter has additional lift only due to the elimination of the tail rotor so 100% power goes to generating lift?

My theory is that it does not generate additional lift in and by itself or if it does very minimal. I base this on the theory that the 1st rotor accelerates the air to high speed giving very little additional energy the 2nd rotor can add to the air to accelerate it to more to generate additional lift. So the 2nd rotor's only purpose is to eliminate the need for a tail rotor and generate additional lift by having more power from engine.

The counter argument is that the 2nd rotor does generate additional lift beyond that of simply the extra power from engine. He said something about friction I don't know wasn't really paying attention.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second rotor does indeed generate lift. In order for the second rotor to counteract the torque of the first rotor, the same amount of torque must be applied to both rotors. This means that both rotors are doing work, and since both rotors have airfoils, they are both accelerating air.

That having been said, for a given engine power, I doubt the lifting power would be very different between a twin counterrotating rotor helicopter as compared to a standard configuration. In the twin rotor configuration, the power will be fairly evenly split between the rotors, while for the single rotor, the power will almost all go to the main rotor. As a result, I would think the lifting power would be about the same.
 
The second rotor would be similar to going from a 2 bladed propellor to a 4 bladed propeller. As far as lift force versus power goes, it's more efficient than spinning a single rotor of the same size at a much faster rpm and/or greater angle of attack to generate the same lift force, but it's less efficient than using a much larger single rotor, or a 4 bladed main rotor of the same size (no complicated coaxial setup). In the case of propellers, the main reason for going to more than 2 blades is ground clearance limitations during takeoffs and landings. I'm not sure why coaxail rotors are used for full scale helicopters. They are more stable than single rotor helicopters, which makes them popular as beginner radio control models.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...

Similar threads

Back
Top