As an aspiring helicopter pilot, I am both awed and repulsed. Vietnam was something else for helicopter pilots. That level of skill would be hard for a perfectly-programmed autopilot to do.
With regards to Vietnam, a legend that I was told (but cannot confirm) was that Hueys had such bad tail rotor authority that they would take off straight up with the whole airframe spinning. Once high enough, the pilot would start the helicopter moving forward, which would allow the tail rotor to bite more, and the helicopter would stabilize.
Crazy if true. And after seeing a stunt like that by a bona fide insane and top-tier veteran pilot, I believe the legend.
Check out the book "Chicken Hawk" by Robert Mason, who flew Hueys in combat in Vietnam. These pilots were able to pilot in and out of some very dangerous situations using the unique qualities of the aircraft. I remember one involved taking off from a hilltop artillery battery by using gravity to drop the aircraft backwards off the steep hill after making a dropoff, or landing in a jungle using the rotors to chop away the vegetation (branches and leaves only, not trunks) to verify that a crashed U.S. aircraft had no survivors. He also talked about a stunt that another helicopter attempted to do, lifting a heavy pole or beam without the proper stabilization which resulted in uncontrollable spin and the death of all aboard.
I have 15 hours, and my training is paused because I don't have a medical yet. (The FAA wanted me to be evaluated in the cockpit before issuing a medical; long story.)
I did not start with fixed wing, though I have flown fixed wing a couple of times, not logged. I wanted to do fixed wing when I was younger, but helicopter seems a better bet now.
The reason is because the fixed wing industry is mostly airlines. And when I say "mostly", I mean 90% or more. That means that the fixed wing industry is subject to the volatility of demand for airline travel. Even before COVID, I knew it was volatile; 9/11 made that clear as well. With COVID being endemic and people not relaxing restrictions, I doubt the fixed wing industry will really recover to what it was. It might, though; my neighbor trains pilots for an airline, and his schedule is full right now because they can barely keep ahead of the demand for new pilots. And there are still other jobs, so the fixed wing demand might remain pretty high.
But rotorcraft was really only affected in one area: tours. The rotorcraft industry is much less volatile, and the demand is just as high. That's why I chose it. Also, it's easier to learn to fly helicopters and then to switch to fixed wing later if necessary.
The downside is that getting your Commercial certificate for rotorcraft is far more expensive, just because even the lightest helicopters cost far more to run per hour.
I can't say which is right for you, but that should at least give you more info.
literally any Vietnam documentary would prove that wrong. what does "moving forward" even mean when you're spinning? also, forward movement doesn't give the tail rotor any more "bite" ... if anything, it would get less. moving in a consistent direction would tend to orient the body of the helicopter to face into the wind because of the wind vane effect.
As a sibling comment said, forward movement does indeed give the tail rotor more authority because it has "cleaner" (less turbulent) air to work in. This makes it more effective. For a source, see [1], pages 2-21 through 2-23, subsection "Translational Lift", and Figures 2-39, 2-40, and 2-41, as well as [2], pages 11-18 through 11-21, section "Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness".
"Moving forward" means tilting the rotor disk. Even when spinning, this will induce a little thrust, which will help clear the "dirty" (turbulent) air from the tail rotor, and as you said, induce a wind vane effect, which would stabilize the spinning a little, which would then allow more forward airspeed, and it would compound. I could see the helicopter flying a widening spiral as it gained forward airspeed until it fully stabilizes in straight-and-level flight.
Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness is a big deal in most helicopters where the tail rotor is not big relative to the size of the helicopter. In Robinson helicopters, the typical trainers, the tail rotors are massive for the size of the helicopter, and you will almost never run into Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness.
> the tail rotor is placed specifically so that it is outside of the main rotor airflow. takeoff and landing require that the tail rotor be in relatively calm air.
Did you read the references I provided? The tail rotor can absolutely be in the turbulent air generated by the main rotor disk on takeoff and landing.
> No, "moving forward" means "moving forward." "tilting the rotor" means "tilting the rotor." those are very different things, as any helicopter pilot would know.
Do you have any training in helicopters? I do.
I used the terms I did because I was making a comment meant to be read by people who don't know the terms. I was trying to make it accessible. When I said that moving forward means tilting the rotor disk, I was saying that that's what I actually meant, but again, I used "moving forward" to make it understandable to others. In essence, I was providing a translation of the layman terms I used.
> I cannot discuss this with someone that doesn't understand English well enough to speak it.
It's not enough to "understand English"; you have to communicate too. That's what I was doing. I'm sure you understand the difference.
> I have no need to prove anything to you, anyway.
No, you don't, except now I think that you are only claiming to know what you are talking about, where I actually have time in a helicopter.
Unless you prove otherwise, I'm just going to think that naikrovek is someone who talks the talk and puts others down for not doing the same while naikrovek can't walk the walk.
While hovering, the tail rotor is pushing air into a dirty vortex. A small amount of speed, even just 20kt, will clear that vortex and give more authority. Even today helicopters will begin pitching nose down immediately on takeoff to get airflow cross both the main and tail rotor to clear those vertices.
That being said, I've talked to a few Vietnam helicopter pilots and all of their stories were ... well, exaggeration is a common theme.
pitching the nose down certainly does one thing: it pushes air backwards, meaning the helicopter starts moving forwards. the air moving across the body of the helicopter, rather than down it, is what starts the wind vane effect.
if the pilot tipped the helicopter to the right after leaving the ground, and then continuously held the control stick in the direction of the movement of the helicopter, the body of the helicopter would begin to face the direction of travel unless the pilot actively countered that turn via the tail rotor.
> if the pilot tipped the helicopter to the right after leaving the ground, and then continuously held the control stick in the direction of the movement of the helicopter, the body of the helicopter would begin to face the direction of travel unless the pilot actively countered that turn via the tail rotor.
Yes, which is why it would work to just push the stick forward, even if the helicopter was spinning.
"I was curious about how the overpass would affect the ground effect of the helicopter. Tragically, I have no brain for physics. But I do know a helicopter pilot, so I asked him. Apparently, at 60 kts, there wouldn’t be significant ground effect because the down flowing air off of the rotor disk would mostly be tailing off of the helicopter. Had Tamburro taken the stunt slower, the down flowing air would be more directly underneath the helicopter, creating an (obviously undesirable) effect."
That part was talking about the traditional ground effect. There isn't much study about what happens when you have a ceiling over a helicopter because that doesn't happen very often in real life. Note the discussion of the air flowing off of the blades.
I was thinking more of the low pressure zone above the helicopter being disrupted by the overpass. Apparently it wasn't too bad since the pilot managed the stunt twice without injury, but it's a possibility that would have had me crapping diamonds if I were asked to pull it off.
I feel an aircraft-on-a-conveyor-belt moment coming on.
So first of all, GE in a rotorcraft is different from GE on a fixed-wing aircraft. The fundamentals are the same, of course, but in a rotorcraft the relative velocity of the blade/wing isn't connected to the velocity of the airframe the way it is in a fixed-wing aircraft. In a fixed-wing aircraft the velocity of the wing and the velocity of the airframe are the same, of course. But in a rotorcraft things get very complicated. The upshot of all this complication is that the GE effect is reduced as the rotorcraft's airframe starts to move. The faster it goes, the less GE you have. So you might notice some differences while hovering under an overpass, but shooting through at 60 MPH the GE is effectively a no-op.
If you really want to know the gory details you'll have to read up on helicopter theory. It's way too complicated for an HN comment.
Yes, I get that. "Reverse ground effect" was how the OP phrased it. What exactly do you think would happen in that case? Suppose the available air were "cut off" by the overpass (it wouldn't be, but let's suspend disbelief for a moment). What would be the result?
Loss of lift due to the interruption of the airflow causing the helicopter to crash into the ground at speed? Or suddenly lower pressure above the helicopter causing it to be "sucked up" into the ceiling.
I think the pilot is probably correct that the stunt could only be pulled off at a higher speed where you can outrace the low/high pressure zones the blades are creating.
I think the term we are looking for would be, ceiling effect?
Just recently saw footage of Fred North* flying into and out of a building, so it must be a negligible effect. * helicopter pilot for movies.
look at the underside of an overpass. it's not a flat surface, but has thick ribs; lots of room for airflow even if the blades were 1" from the underside of the bridge.
I'm in a bus under a freeway overpass as I type this. I pass under here twice a day. The underside is smooth, possibly to keep it easier to clean. I've definitely seen overpasses that are not smooth underneath, but certainly not all overpasses and tunnels have space in the ceiling.
This reminds me the 1968 Brazilian movie "Roberto Carlos em ritmo de aventura" when a pilot flow an helicopter inside the 250m (~ 820 feet) long Túnel Novo (New Tunnel) connecting the neighborhoods of Copacabana and Botafogo.
What is funny you could still buy this helicopter, Schweizer 300, brand new up to 2002 as it was designed in 1955! ~Same carbureted engine with zero automation and 40L/h fuel consumption. No engine governor means pilot manually controls engine rpm, you are the ECM having to correct for air temp and pressure altitude, worry about icing and manifold pressure.
All thanks to stupid US aviation policies - recertification is so expensive nobody does it and everyone flies dangerous shitboxes despite >50 years of innovations.
If people survive such a crazy stunt, you congratulate them, if not, you bury them and the director. Risking people's lives for a few seconds of film is not worth it.
The actors started to call the movie "The Abuse" while filming it.
James Cameron almost died himself on another occasion. He lost his air while submerged and the guy supposed to check on him didn't do his job correctly.
The movie industry has a long history of callously risking its own workers lives. It’s gotten somewhat better than in the 1930s, but clearly there is more work to do.
I'm fairly sure the people doing these stunts do them because they love doing them, not because they are being forced to perform them. If people want to risk their lives for a few seconds of film, why stop them? People are into all kind of weird stuff, as long as they don't hurt others, I don't see what the problem is.
Reality is far more complex than that. Yes, stunt people tend to be a risk seeking crowd. But there’s also the risk of losing their livelihood if they refuse a director’s demands. Film business is a precarious way to make a living, and the power gulf between the director and the stunt person is massive.
History is full of “I think this is a bad idea, but I’ll do it” accounts in the after-disaster reports. People can and regularly do dangerous things against their better judgement because they were ordered to do it or otherwise pressured into it. Saying that they volunteered is to drastically over simplify the situation.
So again, they chose between doing stunts or doing something else. You don't work to do the stunts in the movie? Fine, don't work on the movie, it's not essential to life anyways so continue on with your life.
Because they chose to do stunt work as a living, they should be expected to do them in an unsafe way? Only people who are willing to do things in unnecessarily dangerous ways should be stunt people? I feel like you've got a false dichotomy here. A perfectly reasonable solution is for the director to take their staff's safety into account and not risk people's lives for a movie.
> Because they chose to do stunt work as a living, they should be expected to do them in an unsafe way?
No, did someone claim that? Stuntmen regularly decline to perform stunts they perceive to be too dangerous. It's part of their job to do risk evaluation and say yes or no.
> Only people who are willing to do things in unnecessarily dangerous ways should be stunt people?
Eh, yes, that's literally the definition of being a stuntman, you do things that are dangerous in place of someone else because you know how to manage the dangerous situation compared to the other non-educated (in dangerousness) person you're replacing for that scene.
> A perfectly reasonable solution is for the director to take their staff's safety into account and not risk people's lives for a movie.
Yes, agree! That's why there is a whole stunt team on set, not just the director and the stuntmen themselves. As a team they evaluate the stunts and stop them if they are too unsafe.
Unfortunately, every single stunt in the industry carries the risk of death, so if we want to be really safe, we simply cannot have action movies anymore at all.
The person you were replying to was speaking specifically about situations where the stunt person was uncomfortable doing the stunt and felt pressured into attempting it rather than risking their job.
Who said that it had to be 100% safe? The situations being discussed are those where someone involved felt it was being done in a way that exceeded their risk tolerance but did not feel comfortable refusing.
I guess thinking employees deserve the ability to refuse dangerous work without losing their jobs is just unreasonable coddling of people who should have to risk their lives because the director thinks doing the shot this way would be cooler.
For all their faults nanny states do generally allow professionals to do their jobs. The grandparent comment is beyond even that. They're just assuming that because they can't look at a stunt situation and assess the danger with a reasonable degree of accuracy that neither can an experienced professional.
Continue with your life, and risk losing your career. I think if you’re not accounting for this risk in how people think, then you are absolutely misunderstanding what motivates people to do what they do.
Again, people regularly do things against their best judgement because of social and economic pressure. Stunt people are not magically excluded from this process.
What am I supposed to tell them? That they chose to be in a risky business (or their parents chose for them to be in a risky business) and in risky businesses there is a chance to get hurt?
It's also noted in my previous comment "(or their parents chose for them to be in a risky business)". Since children don't have their own willpower legally or otherwise until they become adults, their parents are their guardian and ultimately responsible for them. Their parents chose to participate in something they knew was dangerous. We've always known flight in general is dangerous and when combined with explosives, extra dangerous.
> All four parents testified that they were never told that there would be helicopters or explosives on set, and they had been reassured that there would be no danger, only noise.
If me and my kids were to be in a film, and the crew assured me there would be no helicopters or explosives on set, but then I arrive and they tell me to go into a helicopter and that explosives will happen next to it, don't I bear responsibility for accepting that?
You make it sound like someone forced the parents and the kids to jump into the helicopter.
They kids were not in the helicopter and the parents were told in the evening before the shooting that it will be just loud but not explosions. The directors specifically hid the kids from fire safety and wellfare officers knowing that what they were doing was illegal.
Quite honestly the entire story is sickening if you read the reports about it.
I believe this evaluation is usually done by a stunt coordinator instead. This is an experienced stunt performer that finds the right person for each stunt, and communicates with the performers on any safety issues that come up.
How many people have died in movies?! I'd guess it is negligible. People have died during theater performances. And it doesn't get safer than a theater.
Before turning seven or so I and my friends thought they really shoot people on set. All for the sake of the art, you know, somebody has to sacrifice to make a good movie. I remember that we argued whether it’s fake or not, and the consensus was it seemed real.
I think it is moral and ethical (and is and should remain legal) for professional adults to voluntarily consent to risking their lives in exchange for payment.
It's not really anyone's place to dictate someone else's risk appetite. Stuntmen and Stuntwomen know what they are signing up for. They are the ones choosing to risk their own lives, not anyone else.
Some people really love doing crazy shit and making wild art. I still quote Terminator 2 decades later; it is epic art regardless of whether you personally like it or not.
I think you're romanticizing stunt-people with "some people really love doing crazy shit and making wild art." Most professionals don't want to take risks with their lives, they just do it because they need to get paid.
In the vast majority of stories you hear, the actor/stunt-person dies because the director/coordinator/other staff was negligent.
It's obviously not reasonable to expect for a stunt-person's job to be as safe as office work, but "they are the ones choosing to risk their own lives" is bs.
> Stuntmen and Stuntwomen know what they are signing up for.
_Everyone_ knows what they're signing up for, so the only interpretation I can make here is that you believe there should be no protections for employees.
> Most professionals don't want to take risks with their lives, they just do it because they need to get paid.
This is making it sound like they're forced to choose their profession and take risks. If I were to guess, the truth is probably completely the opposite - the only reason they got into it was because of the thrill of stuntman work.
"amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic. "
Seems like if you just wanted the side shot and not the straight on shot as well, you could of just pulled the helicopter on a low trailer using the median partition to block. The straight on shot would of required deleting the trailer which may have been difficult but certainly would look better than any CGI attempt
This thread fills me with horror. I admire that movie, it's incredible, especially when I know it's just safe reenactment of a scene. But it's an uneasy feeling to know that there's some serious risk involved.
https://filmschoolrejects.com/terminator-2-helicopter-stunt/