Helicopters are a Government Deception

[BADecker]

Helicopters are a government deception because, they are designed with backwards technology, to keep average people from recognizing how easy it is to fly.

When you compare the size of the helicopter rotary wing with a standard airplane fixed wing, compare the weights of the two vehicles, and compare the engine power to weight ratios, it is easy to see that an airplane is way more efficient.

Why not make a rotary wing that is the size and shape of a standard airplane wing? The speed that it would have to rotate to produce the same amount of lift would be much less than that of a helicopter. The prop on a plane is the thing that directs the air (wind) across the wing so that lift is produced. Because of this, the application of the same power to a properly designed rotary wing would produce lots more lift.

The reason for the design of the modern helicopter is, the design is used to make people think that they cannot design and build real flying machines, that really fly, right in their own garages. Thus government can control the population by not allowing them to easily fly on their own.

Don't believe me? Watch how easy it is to fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD35F68I8Bg or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfa9HrieUyQ or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAew7JHvcOw.

http://www.popsci.com/watch-record-setting-hoverboard-flight

[1714120568]

1714120568

[1714120568]

1714120568

[1714120568]

1714120568

[1714120568]

1714120568

[Buffer Overflow]

Trouble is if a car breaks down, chances are you can pull over safely. If your homemade helicopter breaks down you gonna get seriously hurt, or worse.

[BADecker]

Trouble is if a car breaks down, chances are you can pull over safely. If your homemade helicopter breaks down you gonna get seriously hurt, or worse.

Yes, government loves us, and simply couldn't bear to see any of us harmed in any way.   

[Foxpup]

When you compare the size of the helicopter rotary wing with a standard airplane fixed wing, compare the weights of the two vehicles, and compare the engine power to weight ratios, it is easy to see that an airplane is way more efficient.

It's not easy to see that at all. You're comparing apple and oranges, and I'll tell you why.

Why not make a rotary wing that is the size and shape of a standard airplane wing? The speed that it would have to rotate to produce the same amount of lift would be much less than that of a helicopter. The prop on a plane is the thing that directs the air (wind) across the wing so that lift is produced. Because of this, the application of the same power to a properly designed rotary wing would produce lots more lift.

Your understanding of aerodynamics, if any, is seriously flawed. A plane's propeller does not direct air across the wing to produce lift. The propeller merely propels the plane forwards (hence the name), and the wing's forward motion through the air produces lift. A wing can produce lift without a propeller, as long as the plane is moving forward.

This is a big problem for helicopters, as any forward motion of the aircraft will cause the rotor blades on the left and right to be moving at different speeds relative to the air, and hence produce different amounts of lift on each side of the aircraft. The rotors must be designed to compensate for that, and this reduces their overall efficiency. Even so, with sufficient forward speed, the rotor on one side will stop producing lift entirely, and this is why helicopters cannot be made to travel at high speed. It is not a question of merely producing more lift.

The reason for the design of the modern helicopter is, the design is used to make people think that they cannot design and build real flying machines, that really fly, right in their own garages.

Not with your aeronautical knowledge, they can't.

[TheButterZone]

I thought I read Decepticon. LOL

[BADecker]

When you compare the size of the helicopter rotary wing with a standard airplane fixed wing, compare the weights of the two vehicles, and compare the engine power to weight ratios, it is easy to see that an airplane is way more efficient.

It's not easy to see that at all. You're comparing apple and oranges, and I'll tell you why.

This is the Politics & Society forum. The point isn't meant to be a comparison. The point is meant to be government deception. Really, big business moves the deception as well.

Why not make a rotary wing that is the size and shape of a standard airplane wing? The speed that it would have to rotate to produce the same amount of lift would be much less than that of a helicopter. The prop on a plane is the thing that directs the air (wind) across the wing so that lift is produced. Because of this, the application of the same power to a properly designed rotary wing would produce lots more lift.

Your understanding of aerodynamics, if any, is seriously flawed. A plane's propeller does not direct air across the wing to produce lift. The propeller merely propels the plane forwards (hence the name), and the wing's forward motion through the air produces lift. A wing can produce lift without a propeller, as long as the plane is moving forward.

I guessed that I might get some flack for stating this. And, you are correct in saying that the propeller is for forward motion. However, the propeller in action on a small airplane at rest on the ground, causes lift across the wings. Look it up.

This is a big problem for helicopters, as any forward motion of the aircraft will cause the rotor blades on the left and right to be moving at different speeds relative to the air, and hence produce different amounts of lift on each side of the aircraft. The rotors must be designed to compensate for that, and this reduces their overall efficiency. Even so, with sufficient forward speed, the rotor on one side will stop producing lift entirely, and this is why helicopters cannot be made to travel at high speed. It is not a question of merely producing more lift.

I could chuckle at this one. Probably no home, backyard tinkerer can build a modern helicopter from scratch in his garage. This means that a whole lot of people, engineers, knowledge, etc., has to go into the making of a modern helicopter.

The point is, there is imagination working in the whole operation of a helicopter or airplane. Use yours to see that there are ways around this problem.

The reason for the design of the modern helicopter is, the design is used to make people think that they cannot design and build real flying machines, that really fly, right in their own garages.

Not with your aeronautical knowledge, they can't.

Since I am not doing it, and since my training is only entry level, you are right. However, every person starts at entry level.

Broaden and thicken the rotary blades, slow the rotor speed down, creating more lift thereby. After all, that's simply all you have with an airplane, except that there isn't any rotary action. Then overcome the other problems.

Don't like it? Watch the videos in the links at post #1. Not the same problem, of course. But a whole lot of imagination and innovation that the government and big business could have done years ago. They simply didn't want us to have it.

[Foxpup]

Broaden and thicken the rotary blades, slow the rotor speed down, creating more lift thereby. After all, that's simply all you have with an airplane, except that there isn't any rotary action. Then overcome the other problems.

I just explained why you can't do this. Dissymmetry of lift in helicopters isn't a problem you can "imagine" your way out of, it's an immutable law of physics. It doesn't matter one bit whether government or big business wants you to.

[BADecker]

Broaden and thicken the rotary blades, slow the rotor speed down, creating more lift thereby. After all, that's simply all you have with an airplane, except that there isn't any rotary action. Then overcome the other problems.

I just explained why you can't do this. Dissymmetry of lift in helicopters isn't a problem you can "imagine" your way out of, it's an immutable law of physics. It doesn't matter one bit whether government or big business wants you to.

I didn't catch the explanation. So, since I don't see it, would you mind explaining it again? And explain just how your explanation relates to what I said? After all, to start, we are only talking about lift, not about traveling at speeds of hundreds of mph.

Thanks.

[Foxpup]

I didn't catch the explanation. So, since I don't see it, would you mind explaining it again? And explain just how your explanation relates to what I said? After all, to start, we are only talking about lift, not about traveling at speeds of hundreds of mph.

You won't be travelling at hundreds of mph with a big slow rotor. If you actually thought for two seconds about what I said, you would see that the slower the rotor is turning, the slower the aircraft can travel before dissymmetric lift becomes a problem.

[Buffer Overflow]

This helicopter thing smells suspiciously like the water power car BS thing. Probably from the same website.  

Anyway, I wouldn't want some amateur home mechanic who doesn't know how to use a torque wrench building a helicopter kit in his garage, then flying it over my house.

[BADecker]

I didn't catch the explanation. So, since I don't see it, would you mind explaining it again? And explain just how your explanation relates to what I said? After all, to start, we are only talking about lift, not about traveling at speeds of hundreds of mph.

You won't be travelling at hundreds of mph with a big slow rotor. If you actually thought for two seconds about what I said, you would see that the slower the rotor is turning, the slower the aircraft can travel before dissymmetric lift becomes a problem.

All right. Now that we have the hovercraft part part settled, all that is needed is speed over, say, 50 or 60 mph. This should be able to be accomplished using a small housing of the right shape over part of two counter spinning rotors.

Straight-up lift isn't a problem. It's the forward motion that creates the problem. The problem is easily overcome by using stubby wings in conjunction with the rotor. As more forward motion is applied, the wings do more work and the rotor does less.

Come on. Use your imagination. Do you think the guy in the videos just sat around and let his hoverboard bring itself into existence? He used a lot of imagination, and then built around the things that he imagined until he had something that worked.

[TECSHARE]

You forgot the ability for vertical landing and takeoff. That saves a lot of money on building landing strips. Also like others have said the propellers are designed to promote stability over efficiency.

If you want a real scandal check out how Maxwell's models for energy were modified to leave out longitudinal wave energy in order to promote a less efficient and wasteful economy because it is more profitable.

[BADecker]

Why wouldn't a completely enclosed rotary wing produce lift? After all, theoretically it is the low pressure of the air across the top of the wing that allows for the high pressure beneath the wing to push the wing up into the low air pressure area. What advantage does out-in-the-open have over totally-enclosed?

If somebody did this, we could have space flight that worked on the wing design.

[Buffer Overflow]

Why wouldn't a completely enclosed rotary wing produce lift?

The thrust would only be confined to inside the enclosed area. Outside you would just have an enclosure doing nothing but making lots of noise and vibration.

What advantage does out-in-the-open have over totally-enclosed?

Out-in-the-open ones work.

Since I am not doing it, and since my training is only entry level, you are right.

Training for what?

[BADecker]

Why wouldn't a completely enclosed rotary wing produce lift?

The thrust would only be confined to inside the enclosed area. Outside you would just have an enclosure doing nothing but making lots of noise and vibration.

What advantage does out-in-the-open have over totally-enclosed?

Out-in-the-open ones work.

Since I am not doing it, and since my training is only entry level, you are right.

Training for what?

Don't worry, Fluffer. It'll be a long time before any amateurs fly any cows over your house.

 

[Foxpup]

Why wouldn't a completely enclosed rotary wing produce lift? After all, theoretically it is the low pressure of the air across the top of the wing that allows for the high pressure beneath the wing to push the wing up into the low air pressure area.

And the high pressure beneath the wing is also pushing the bottom of the enclosure down with equal force. You can't violate conservation of momentum in a closed system. Wings work only because they are not a closed system: there is a constant flow incoming and outgoing air, and these flows are moving in different directions. The outgoing air is redirected downwards by the wing, and the reaction force pushes the wing upwards, conserving momentum.

If you don't understand conservation of momentum and Newton's third law, please read up on elementary physics before trying to wrestle with more advanced concepts.

[BTI4LIFE]

This helicopter thing smells suspiciously like the water power car BS thing. Probably from the same website.  

Anyway, I wouldn't want some amateur home mechanic who doesn't know how to use a torque wrench building a helicopter kit in his garage, then flying it over my house.

oh i thought that thing was water powered! ;-) * let's hook up some bitcoin miners to it ~will be good to go!!

[Buffer Overflow]

Why wouldn't a completely enclosed rotary wing produce lift? After all, theoretically it is the low pressure of the air across the top of the wing that allows for the high pressure beneath the wing to push the wing up into the low air pressure area.

And the high pressure beneath the wing is also pushing the bottom of the enclosure down with equal force. You can't violate conservation of momentum in a closed system. Wings work only because they are not a closed system: there is a constant flow incoming and outgoing air, and these flows are moving in different directions. The outgoing air is redirected downwards by the wing, and the reaction force pushes the wing upwards, conserving momentum.

If you don't understand conservation of momentum and Newton's third law, please read up on elementary physics before trying to wrestle with more advanced concepts.

Don't bother trying to explain it to him, it's way way way beyond his level of understanding.

[protokol]

These "government deception" theories are nearly always bullshit, and you don't even need to understand the tech to realize why:

We live in an age where the consumer tech market is incredibly rich and powerful - gone are the days when esoteric technology had to be researched in secret labs funded by NASA et al. Now it is researched by multi-national tech companies like Google and Samsung, and they want to make as much money as possible by bringing the newest tech to the market, as quickly as possible. Capitalism is a bitch, but it's fucking fast.

Because the market is so lucrative, a really good idea WILL be tested by a consumer tech company, and the simpler the idea, the more likely that a tech company will research it.

Because the market is global, no single government can effectively suppress any secret technology, especially if said technology can make major profit in the tech market.

BADecker, unless you are an aeronautical expert (I'm talking at least PhD level), then you have NO authority to comment on technology such as this in the way that you are. Helicopters are designed to be maneuverable and to have VTOL capabilities. They do this at the expense of lateral speed and weight. Your insinuation that helicopter tech is purposefully archaic is laughable, and as I have shown above, makes no logical sense.

The main reasons that everyone doesn't have a personal flying machine are:

A. They're pretty hard for the average person to build, and very expensive to buy.
B. There is a huge amount of red tape that you need to get through before being authorised to pilot any personal flying machine. Just look at flying cars: They exist, but the market for them is very small because you need a pilots license/driving license/suitable landing strip next to your house.

The reason we don't see everyone flying around is because it would be a total fucking disaster, not because the gov is suppressing any "Large Rotary Wing" technology.

 

[countryfree]

My dear friend, you are free to start a company manufacturing flying machines which are better and cheaper than helicopters, but don't underestimate the difficulty. It's quite easy to build a machine which will perform nicely in your backyard on a sunny day without wind, but it's a very different story to put in regular production a machine which will fly regularly any day without killing the people inside.