Rotary-wings vs fixed-wings

[KarlB]

I was asked earlier today in all seriousness "what is the primary advantage of rotary-winged aircraft over fixed-winged aircraft?". Thought the wealth of knowledge in the forum, particularly for things mechanical and/or military, would know the answer.

Cheers
KarlB
:tease:

[spudboy]

I always thought the Harrier jump jet combined the advantages of both nicely. Would love to have a flight in one!

[Lionel]

I was asked earlier today in all seriousness "what is the primary advantage of rotary-winged aircraft over fixed-winged aircraft?". Thought the wealth of knowledge in the forum, particularly for things mechanical and/or military, would know the answer.

Cheers
KarlB
:tease:

I was quite interested in this aircraft:

Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey)

I first saw one flying in a news clip and said WTF is THAT!!!

It is also an attempt to combine the desirable features of each aircraft type.

Cheers,

Lionel

[isuzutoo-eh]

Main advantage:

You can go fishing in a helicopter.

YouTube - Troy Dann Helicopter fishing

:D

[Marshall]

I used to work in the Army 5th Aviation Regiment, so have been around things that fly... (and crash:angel:) so here are some points to use when next asked...

Rotary wing (RW) are ideal for forward operating / tactical tasks. I.e dumping a gun somewhere for artillery or delivering troops deep into a combat zone where the risk being, if you stop for too long, you could get shot. The Osprey used by the USMC is a great bird, just loud, huge, cumbersome and VERY expensive, not to mention highly susceptible to RPG attack if used in forward operations (presents a very wide and long target.) and Harriers, despite being VERY cool, could not carry a packed lunch...
The CH-47 Chinook can still carry shed loads of kit, and have proven combat experience...
RW has the advantage of manouverability over Fixed Wing (FW).
RW does not require a landing strip
RW generally presents a smaller target area, thus less easily targetted by RPG.
RW: In, load up casualties, out. quick and easy.
FW has to land, stop, load up, turn around and take off. Lots of on ground time...
FW are generally faster, but both the Chinook and the Blackhawk are quite rapid!
difficult to abseil or fastrope from FW...
As pointed out by isuzutoo-eh, can fish from RW...
FW are generally home for tea and medals a lot sooner and in more comfort...
FW = less hemorrhoids...
Marshall

[Celtoid]

I was asked earlier today in all seriousness "what is the primary advantage of rotary-winged aircraft over fixed-winged aircraft?". Thought the wealth of knowledge in the forum, particularly for things mechanical and/or military, would know the answer.

Cheers
KarlB
:tease:

It's a bit of a "how long is a piece of string?" question. Depends on what you are trying to achieve. How big an aircraft are you referring to/needing, etc. There are so many variable to consider.

In some scenarios there would be no advantages at all.

The oil leaking, smoke sputtering Caribous were kept flying for years after their use by date because places like the Solomon Islands and to a lesser extent East Timor, presented a unique set of challanges. In some cases big FW transporters couldn't land and Helo's didn't have the range or load. The Bou was also a lot cheaper to run than any large Military helo. I think in the early days of the Solomon issue or maybe Timor (that was a long time ago :)) the calculation was $6K per/hr. $8K for a Black Hawk, $12K for a Chook and around $20 for the flying Soviet city block, the Mil26. Don't quote me on those numbers but that was around the difference in operating costs.

Once the AO was considered low risk, they intoduced civilian FW charter aircraft for a lot of the 'mail runs'.

As was stated by Marshall, there are some fast helicopters...I think the Lynx held the record for years but you just can't make a helo go over a certain speed.....something to do with the speed of helo added to preceding rotor blade speed.....my memory fails me, I think the outer part of the main rotor approaches the sound barrier....which I think is bad...:confused:. All in all, a helo is seriously slow compared to a modern transporter but can be quicker than a FW bug smasher.

RW don't make much of a fighter either.

So, just how long is that piece of string...LOL???

Cheers,

Kev.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I used to work in the Army 5th Aviation Regiment, so have been around things that fly... (and crash:angel:) so here are some points to use when next asked...
<snip>
MarshallMarshall

Quite an extensive list, however you omitted a number of important factors.

FW: have a greater endurance.
FW: are more fuel efficient.

[JDNSW]

The only advantage of rotary wing is that they are capable of remaining airborne and under control while stationary. This translates into the advantages mentioned in earlier posts.

In virtually all other respects, fixed wing has the advantage - just listing a few:-

Initial cost for the same performance and carrying capacity.

or, longer range, higher speed, better fuel economy and greater load for the same cost.

Longer engine and airframe time between inspections/service/replacement - usually a lot longer. Fixed wing (usually) have no critical load carrying components which are also moving parts!

Depending on the mission, fixed wing is much safer, although I suspect that a lot of rotary wing accidents are the result of operating much closer to the edges of the envelope than is common in fixed wing.

In summary, unless you need to stop or nearly stop while airborne, there is no reason at all for using rotary wing. If you do need to, there is no substitute!

John

[marko66]

Hi All

I have agreed with most everything that is said :)and would like to add that in an ultralight setting that the rotary wing is a LOT more capable of flying in windy conditions.

Regards Mark

[VladTepes]

I think this is definitive:
(care, contains swearing)

YouTube - Helicopters vs. Jets

[big guy]

Having done some training(hours) in a turbine heli the machines really do defy the many laws of motion.
First thing we did was a auto rotation and recovery to shock me mainly and show me that even in an emergency they can glide to safety and land.

RW are very expensive to run, they are charged out at a minute rate depending on what machine is used etc. I did some time in a R22 and 44 also.
Very old but dependable technology. But never really felt safe.

A FW struggles to land in emergency where they want. To a certain degree any how. Once on approch and if dead stick(engine stalled) you have one chance and thats it.
A heli(RW) is basically straight down whilst maintaining forward motion and just before touch down its full collective to get the rotors at full opposite to slow the machine down. Very effective and to some degree safer if tail rotor still in tact.

Anyhow, training for a heli lic is very expensive when compared to a FW, most heli pilots are often FW pilots also inmy experience anyhow.

Rarely does a RW wing pilot wish they were FW pilots but often its the other way.

Biggest issue I have found is refuelling, every nut and bolts has a hour life and aviation engineers have to sign off on stuff and are ridiculasly expensive.

My mates Jet Ranger we go fishing in to KI.

[VladTepes]

Saw Better Homes and Gardens yesterday (the missus is a fan of Dr Harry) and Mick Doohan was on. He has a very nice helicopter so as you can see it's a hobby of the common man.

Oh wait, no, what I meant is "extremely rich man"

[JDNSW]

Further to this discussion, see Chopper crash in Blue Mountains (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/chopper-crash-in-blue-mountains-20101010-16dg7.html)
.
This would seem at first glance to reinforce my comment that the poor accident record of rotary wing has most to do with how they are used - reports suggest "low cloud and mist".

On the other hand, the survival of all on board presumably has to do with the fact that at impact forward motion was at a minimum.

John

[KarlB]

I was telling my mate, who asked me the question originally, how I had posed his question to the learned folk on the AULRO Forum. And that the issue had generated some interesting and informed responses. I also asked him what he considered was the correct answer. He just laughed and said here it is:

http://www.aulro.com/app/data/500/rotary_wing.JPG (http://www.aulro.com/app/showphoto.php/photo/18726/title/rotary-wing/cat/500)


Cheers
KarlB
:D

[Marshall]

I don't see a problem with speed...:cool:

[flagg]

Further to this discussion, see Chopper crash in Blue Mountains (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/chopper-crash-in-blue-mountains-20101010-16dg7.html)
.
This would seem at first glance to reinforce my comment that the poor accident record of rotary wing has most to do with how they are used - reports suggest "low cloud and mist".

On the other hand, the survival of all on board presumably has to do with the fact that at impact forward motion was at a minimum.

John

interestingly I was in the blue mountains on that day and commended to my father about how insane it was to have a heli anywhere near due to weather. Thick fog, mist, rain and moving walls of cloud. And Woodford is a very odd place to be in IMC when tracking from Para to Bathurst.

I think the 'cargo' being carried may be been a bit too keen to get to the destination. Will be interesting to see what the ATSB have to say.. sad way to loose a Squirrel.