←back to thread

Kitty Hawk reveals its secret project, Heaviside

(techcrunch.com)
171 points BrooklynRage | 3 comments | 03 Oct 19 17:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.25s | source
Show context
platz ◴[06 Oct 19 00:19 UTC] No.21168899[source]▶
> On the helicopter, there’s a little bolt on top, and if you unscrew that, you take the cotter pin out, we all die.”

I imagine that's hard to do while in operation.

Meanwhile, a heli has autorotation, which is quite convenient in various failure modes.

replies(1): >>21169187 #
starpilot ◴[06 Oct 19 01:22 UTC] No.21169187[source]▶
Your quote refers to the "jesus nut": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut, which doesn't apply to newer helicopters.
replies(1): >>21169533 #
1. e12e ◴[06 Oct 19 02:59 UTC] No.21169533[source]▶
I'm curious - surely there's still some single point that would let the rotor fly away? What does it mean that newer helicopters "doesn't have" this? I mean the rotor is attached? It's a single axel? There are scenarios where the rotor falls off?
replies(2): >>21169605 #>>21169847 #
2. mannykannot ◴[06 Oct 19 03:15 UTC] No.21169605[source]▶
Conventional airplanes also have single points of failure, such as the main spar or the empennage. Granted, they are not moving parts.
3. maxden ◴[06 Oct 19 04:38 UTC] No.21169847[source]▶
There has been at least two cases recently of the main rotor blades as a whole detaching in flight. Gearbox failure caused the second crash [1]

On the older 'teetering head' designs like the Huey, you can bump the mast (rotor shaft) in aggressive nose overs or low g conditions which would also separate the rotors from the aircraft.

[0] https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=213384

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHC_Helikopter_Service_Flight_...