h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The conversation about helicopters flying upside down made me remember this question. My brother and I were having a discussion about it, so what do you think?

Would you be ejected out the side, or would that make you hit the blades on your way out?
Would you be ejected out the top, like in a plane, but with a special device to stop the blades in the right position, so you would not be hit?

I think it'd be the first one. If you were ejected out fast enough, you would not hit the blades... I don't know... Here, have a drink:

Personally, I'd go out the bottom, on a rope and and prayer!

I've had rides in a couple of military and civilian crafts, and never thought to ask. I would have to guess, ... unbuckle, ... topple out of the side and hope no irregularities of the craft (that made you wanna jump in the first place) catch ya.

Mines a mice. ues a n ejector seat doesn't per se have to send the ejectee upwards does it*tries to look learned*

I saw a programme years ago that sowed the blades of the helicoptor being blown off by charges prior to the ejector seat going out through the top of the cockpit.

No doubt with a boom voice kicking in:

"Look out below!"

yes but the rotas would need to blow off at the same time...........

Just the same as the cockpit cover of an aircraft needs to be jettisoned when you eject.

'I saw a programme years ago that sowed the blades of the helicoptor being blown off by charges prior to the ejector seat going out through the top of the cockpit.'

This is the answer, pretty much. There are different ways of removing the blades using either explosive charges or retractable blades. According to my quick flick through a couple of books, there was a helicopter called the Sikorsky RSRA (Rotor Systems Research Aircraft) that had severable blades and ejector seats that worked after the blades had been removed. I believe that they are now becoming more common in regular service aircraft.

They will usually work in an upwards direction as sideways or downwards will limit the occupants' chances of survival if the plane is travelling close to the ground.

Theres a Russian helicopter called the KA-50 and 52 (ones single seat ones twin) code named Hokum with twin counter rotating baldes which has ejector seats its very rare and as far as I know it’s the only helicotewr which has been mass produced which has them. However since they only work above 100m so there not that useful. To make them work the rotar blades are on an explosive charge sytem so they are disconneted from the hubs and the centripedal force throws them away from the helicopter then the armoured helicopter roof if blown away, then after a second or so the seat then works like a normal aircraft ejector seats. The helicopter isn't a mass produced machine only 31 have been ordered although there little evidence that all the helicpoters have been built. Since there only useable if the helipoters at a reasonably height (since you need to give time for the blades to fly away) and since the helicopters are well protected with multiple redundant backup systems anyway. The biggest problem for helipcoters is the blades quite obviously and the fact that they work at low heights and speeds usually. In order to get out the only way is sideway (dangerous as you might be leaning to the ground on that side anyway) or downwards and if your near the ground at low speed the helipoter might well be comming down on you anyway. Downwards ejection only works at a high height to ensure that you will be clear of the helicopter before the parachute even works. The Ka-50 andn52 allow the occupents the option of rolling out the helicopter sidways.

I think I saw that same programme about ejector seats. I seem to recall that it was an extremely risky manouevre, frequently leading to severe injuries if not death. Fair enough, if it's that or certain death. But better if possible to make a slower exit with a parachute.

Am I right in thinking that it's more difficult to make an emergency landing with a (damaged) helicopter than a plane?

Well it would be if the damage was to the engines. An aeroplane will glide for a long way if the engines fail, depending on speed and altitude.

If a helicopter suffers engine failure, then the only thing holding it up is the blades, which will hold it up for a certain amount of time, as the chopper's forward momentum will cause the blades to windmill, autogyro style. Unfortunately this causes a lot of drag, and will slow the aircraft down until it eventually just plummets out of the sky.

That is, of course, presupposing that the thing is far enough up in the air for any of this to make any difference. Helicopters, (and especially attack helicopters,) generally operate at such low speeds and altitudes that if the engines failed, no-one would have much time to even know about it.

"But better if possible to make a slower exit with a parachute."

The trouble with modern jet aircraft is that they're travelling too fast to make it physically possible to simply climb out of the thing.

----

"Am I right in thinking that it's more difficult to make an emergency landing with a (damaged) helicopter than a plane?"

Depends on what goes wrong with it... If the tail rotor stops going round the thing with the main rotors still powered, it has a tendancy to screw itself into the ground...

However, if the engine stops, the pilot can 'autorotate' - which basically involves slipping the rotors into neutral and letting them act like a parachute, slowing the descent of helicopter...

If a helicopter engine fails they can autorotation its very simple really. They let the helicopter decent at a reasonably rate (rate of decent depends on many factors) this decent mean the rotors keep spinning and the pilot has some control. Since a helicopter uses less power to cruise than just hover the pilot would keep the aircraft moving forward, plus it give more control, allows him to autorotation some distance to pick somewhere suitable to land, also they can see where there going better than having to decent straight down.
However the pilot needs to be aware of the engine becoming useless and push the collective stick down quick to ensure the rotor blade don't stop moving as within a few seconds they can slow down enough to stop being able to be used for autorotation so your in a flying brick as such.

As for what's safer well it depends a helicopter can autorotation and land almost vertically so anywhere big enough to stick the landing gear / helicopter on is fine. However a helicopter's blades are a hazard if they hit objects and can remove the ability to control from the pilot

a plane however needs to keep moving forward to stay in the air so it needs a runway etc. In many cases a runway isn't available to the plane end up taking making one in the trees etc which is very dangerous as you only have to have one tree in the way and since you'll be approaching it at speed there not much chances also the plane is more likely to break-up hence increasing the risks. Helicopters aren't used for long distance journeys so that's where the issue of what's safer is difficult to say since risk during take off and landing is greater than any phase of flight.

Ejecting out of planes isn't easy or safe but in the combat situation its often the only choice. Seats are today very safe but there massively risks if your not sat correctly or launching from the correct airspeed altitude etc.

Personally I'd prefer to be in a plane with a highly skilled helicopter pilot than highly skilled plane pilot. However with any other pilots I'd prefer to be in an aircraft.

easiest way. right.

1st charge is mounted on the tops of the doors to blow the doors down and away.

2nd charge after the doors are safely away will blast the seats out sideways in a straight line.

3rd charge after moving a set distance safely away (preferably well out of reach of the rotors) there will be a charge under the seat to blow upwards and deploy the parachute.