WI: Helicopters before Aircraft

[lionhead]

So, What if the helicopters had been invented before the airplane?

What i know is the airplane in OTL was officially first flown in 1903, with a much better version of it in 1909, single wing, unaided lift, showing they were very capable of being used(to say it crudely). A very succesfull development.

The helicopter, OTL first flight was in 1907, but they were not very successful. Though the invention itself is not far apart from the plane, the designs had major flaws and they simply couldn't develop them to be more successful in design(mostly because of the lack of a tail rotor i suspect). A more stable version, without constantly failing were only being build in the 1920's. With the first truly useable's only developed in the 1930, 1940's.

But what if that was the other way around and helicopters were first invented as a stable, sustainable way of actually flying? Earlier use of the tail rotor and better engines to give them a decent lift load. Lets make the plane less successfull with more crashes and less efficient designs, like the helicopter suffered. So, Helicopters in view in 1906, planes only in the 1930's.

How would the future look like? How would WWI and WWII look like? how far and what role would the 2 have today?

 

[Delta Force]

That seems unlikely. Helicopters require far more power to fly than a fixed wing aircraft of the same weight.

 

[Pangur]

That seems unlikely. Helicopters require far more power to fly than a fixed wing aircraft of the same weight.

I think thats the basic problem - an engine powerful enough to lift and fly the helicopter and not be too heavy to give you PPP

 

[Just Leo]

If you study the history of the helicopter, and vertical flight, you will find that the lack of earlier success was not for lack of trying. You have studied the early history of helicopter development, haven't you?

 

[Crowbar Six]

Fixed wing aircraft are much more aerodynamically efficient than a helicopter.

For helicopters to be more "successful" you would need to change the laws of aerodynamics.

 

[hx87]

If you study the history of the helicopter, and vertical flight, you will find that the lack of earlier success was not for lack of trying. You have studied the early history of helicopter development, haven't you?

It wasn't for lack of trying, but for lack of engine power. Any engine powerful enough to give you a functional helicopter would be more than enough to give you a larger functional static wing aircraft.

 

[Driftless]

You need both efficient power AND control. That's largely what separated the Wrights from some of their predessors. Other experimenters got off the ground for short hops, but they either had no control at all, or very limited.

For helicopters to precede planes in flight, they'd need to have efficient engines and an adequate control mechanism - or it's just a lawn mower with really big blades....

 

[Just Leo]

It wasn't for lack of trying, but for lack of engine power. Any engine powerful enough to give you a functional helicopter would be more than enough to give you a larger functional static wing aircraft.

As Driftless mentioned, nobody realized until they had suitable engines, that they had no control over it. The swashplate wasn't thought of until 1911, and wasn't developed until after 2 men had flown an aircraft across the Atlantic. A few years later, a helicopter could fly across the street. The first speed record for helicopters was 1924, I think, and you could run faster, and farther.

 

[ennobee]

I have to agree with everyone above. Building a toy helicopter is much simpler than building a model aircraft, but when it comes to building a fully steerable helicopter, the design becomes much more complex and so does the technology involved. In short, you have to be able to move each rotor blade separately and then have a control mechanism to move all blades in unison. In history, the first issue, moving each blade independent from all the others became possible by the 1920's because of the advances in precision cast lightweight metal alloys. The second part: Moving every rotor blade together with the others, took until the late 1930s with the input from regulator theory gained from developing autopilots for aircraft.

Given a shift jn priorities and enough research and financial backing, we might speed up the development of the necessary technologies by 10, may be 15 years, so helicopters could be fully developed by 1927, but for them to be available before aircraft, this also means we would have to delay the first successful aircraft by 25 years as well.

Then there is the issue of many of the technologies used in a helicopter being available mainly because they were develops for use in aircraft in the first place. If we had to develop all those from scratch, sooner or later an enterprising kite builder would find out that with these technologies available, building a viable airplane would suddenly be easy, quick and cheap. And voila, the airplane still beats out the helicopter

sorry.

 

[lionhead]

Given a shift jn priorities and enough research and financial backing, we might speed up the development of the necessary technologies by 10, may be 15 years, so helicopters could be fully developed by 1927, but for them to be available before aircraft, this also means we would have to delay the first successful aircraft by 25 years as well

yes, that was what i was suggesting.

i don't understand what everyone's problem is with this. If the development of the airplane is still far away yet the technology of building a decent helicopter has een discovered in the early 1900's what besides engine power is preventing the helicopter from being used before the airplane?

Its just a simple what if scenario, i'm just curious what way a helicopter will be used when it is the main means of flying instead of the airplane.

 

[Syriac]

yes, that was what i was suggesting.

i don't understand what everyone's problem is with this. If the development of the airplane is still far away yet the technology of building a decent helicopter has een discovered in the early 1900's what besides engine power is preventing the helicopter from being used before the airplane?

Its just a simple what if scenario, i'm just curious what way a helicopter will be used when it is the main means of flying instead of the airplane.

The reason people are objecting is that if you have the technology to build a functional helicopter, you'll have had the ability to make an airplane for some time. Being able to build a toy helicopter is vastly simpler than making a helicopter an actually functional vehicle. It is hard to say how helicopters would develop in this scenario, because we don't know why the much simpler option is being ignored. A scenario where fixed winged craft are simply impossible would probably include much larger roles for aerostats for a long time before helicopters are developed, but that sort of scenario (with differing physical laws) goes in th e ASB subforum.

 

[usertron2020]

So, What if the helicopters had been invented before the airplane?

What i know is the airplane in OTL was officially first flown in 1903, with a much better version of it in 1909, single wing, unaided lift, showing they were very capable of being used (to say it crudely). A very successful development.

The helicopter, OTL first flight was in 1907, but they were not very successful

AIUI, the very first practical helicopter, complete with fully functional tail rotor, did not fly until Igor Sikorsky's 1940 flight in Stratford, Connecticut. If there was a practical tail rotor helicopter before this, that is one where the pilot was NOT desperately trying to keep himself from being killed AND was capable of more than very short hops, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

If you study the history of the helicopter, and vertical flight, you will find that the lack of earlier success was not for lack of trying. You have studied the early history of helicopter development, haven't you?

I have, and the chances for the engines of the decade of the 1900s being able to support the weight of its own engine, any real amount of fuel, and the weight of a very athletic jockey do not fill me with confidence. My God, the death rate of pilots in fixed wing aircraft pre-WWI was bad enough as it was. Add on the lack of aerodynamics for a helicopter with a failing engine...

Fixed wing aircraft are much more aerodynamically efficient than a helicopter.

For helicopters to be more "successful" you would need to change the laws of aerodynamics.

Stop making sense!

As Driftless mentioned, nobody realized until they had suitable engines, that they had no control over it. The swashplate wasn't thought of until 1911, and wasn't developed until after 2 men had flown an aircraft across the Atlantic. A few years later, a helicopter could fly across the street. The first speed record for helicopters was 1924, I think, and you could run faster, and farther.

Again, it all goes back to practicality. Who's going to invest in such a thing as a helicopter as earlier as 1924? Its like a navy investing in aircraft carriers in 1906!

I have to agree with everyone above. Building a toy helicopter is much simpler than building a model aircraft, but when it comes to building a fully steerable helicopter, the design becomes much more complex and so does the technology involved. In short, you have to be able to move each rotor blade separately and then have a control mechanism to move all blades in unison. In history, the first issue, moving each blade independent from all the others became possible by the 1920's because of the advances in precision cast lightweight metal alloys. The second part: Moving every rotor blade together with the others, took until the late 1930s with the input from regulator theory gained from developing autopilots for aircraft.

I assume that somewhere in here also includes the technology for variable pitch of tail rotors? Not being snarky, just wondering. WERE THERE any practical helos before the VS-300?

 

[JennyB]

I assume that somewhere in here also includes the technology for variable pitch of tail rotors? Not being snarky, just wondering. WERE THERE any practical helos before the VS-300?

There were autogyros about twenty years before and possibly, given the right powerplant and a lot of handwaving, they might have flown earlier and been preferred as safer than the Wright stuff. But, come the first major war where both sides have the capability, I think we'd see faster winged planes pretty soon.

 

[lionhead]

AIUI, the very first practical helicopter, complete with fully functional tail rotor, did not fly until Igor Sikorsky's 1940 flight in Stratford, Connecticut. If there was a practical tail rotor helicopter before this, that is one where the pilot was NOT desperately trying to keep himself from being killed AND was capable of more than very short hops, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

Why did you cut off my sentence like that? Further reading shows i mentioned that the first practical helicopter didn't show up untill the 40's, so why make this comment? Is reading that hard?

 

[MattII]

There were autogyros about twenty years before and possibly, given the right powerplant and a lot of handwaving, they might have flown earlier and been preferred as safer than the Wright stuff. But, come the first major war where both sides have the capability, I think we'd see faster winged planes pretty soon.

Autogyros aren't helicopters, strictly speaking.

Also, mate, not happening, not unless a god comes down and gives you an engine that works in a helicopter but not in an aeroplane.

 

[riggerrob]

This morning I offered to give a half hour lecture on lead-lag, flapping and pitch change hinges in a conventional helicopter rotor hub. My audience declined.
Hah!
Hah!
Seriously, before helicopter flight became practical, they needed to develop: pitch stable airfoil sections, swash plates, flapping hinges, collective pitch change, differential pitch change, high power to weight ratio engines, high strength to weight metals, transmissions, drive shafts, rotary rudders, altimeters, etc and combine them in a balanced package that the average pilot could control.
Even tidal, A fixed wing airplane can be built with 1/10 the moving parts and more efficient in all aspects except short field take-offs.

 

[Just Leo]

Indeed. The Focke-Angelis Fa-61 predated the first practical helicopter you seem to know of, and didn't require a tail rotor. It's all written in history. Is reading that hard?

 

[usertron2020]

The helicopter, OTL first flight was in 1907, but they were not very successful. Though the invention itself is not far apart from the plane, the designs had major flaws and they simply couldn't develop them to be more successful in design(mostly because of the lack of a tail rotor i suspect). A more stable version, without constantly failing were only being build in the 1920's. With the first truly useable's only developed in the 1930, 1940's.

Why did you cut off my sentence like that? Further reading shows i mentioned that the first practical helicopter didn't show up until the 40's, so why make this comment?

Because the exact year is critical. The "1930's" means you are saying some OTHER practical helicopter BEFORE Igor Sikorsky's VS-300 with its revolutionary working tail rotor. "Only developed in the (not 30s?) 40s" covers an entire decade, so again is there some other candidate than Sikorsky's VS-300?

I am NOT saying that there never was some little known inventor/aviation pioneer out there somewhere that had a genuinely practical tail rotor helicopter. Just saying that I would be very appreciative if ANYONE knew of just such a case. I'm curious myself.

There were "helicopters" not unlike the uncontrollable "flying contraptions" that pre-dated the Wright Brothers, but all had the same problem: They could take off, but without control they faced the inevitable crash. So too with the credited helicopters that pre-dated Sikorsky. Yes, they could fly. But not for long, not very well, and often (depending on the design) leading to the inevitable crash.

Is reading that hard?

OK, now who is being snarky?

 

[usertron2020]

<snip> so why make this comment? Is reading that hard?

Indeed. The Focke-Angelis Fa-61 predated the first practical helicopter you seem to know of, and didn't require a tail rotor.

The world's first practical VTOL Thanks.

It's all written in history. Is reading that hard?

Its times like this you have to remind yourself of the average age of our membership. Goodbye.

 

[lionhead]

Because the exact year is critical. The "1930's" means you are saying some OTHER practical helicopter BEFORE Igor Sikorsky's VS-300 with its revolutionary working tail rotor. "Only developed in the (not 30s?) 40s" covers an entire decade, so again is there some other candidate than Sikorsky's VS-300?

I am NOT saying that there never was some little known inventor/aviation pioneer out there somewhere that had a genuinely practical tail rotor helicopter. Just saying that I would be very appreciative if ANYONE knew of just such a case. I'm curious myself.

There were "helicopters" not unlike the uncontrollable "flying contraptions" that pre-dated the Wright Brothers, but all had the same problem: They could take off, but without control they faced the inevitable crash. So too with the credited helicopters that pre-dated Sikorsky. Yes, they could fly. But not for long, not very well, and often (depending on the design) leading to the inevitable crash.



OK, now who is being snarky?

sorry for being snarky. Its just that i don't understand what the fuzz is all about and i feel like being ignored and misunderstood. I wasn't sure when the first operational helicopter was made but i knew it was either the 30's or the 40's so i mentioned them both. Big deal.

Why are we even discussing this anyway? Its not important to the scenario i made, i just wanted to turn the roles of the 2 around. Doesn't matter if its 30's or 40's for the scenario. Who cares about exact dates of certain inventions? Its a simple scenario.

If someone says: "This or that is invented earlier" they don't have to give specific details on the how and why, names of inventors that could have done it then, reference books and papers by university graduates right? Just try and imagine it, try and use your imagination on the darned scenario. that is all.