4 ms·
You are certainly right on helicopters' dynamics... I was more thinking of planes and rockets when writing on dynamics: they are shaped to break through and be
by illys 7y ago
You are certainly right on helicopters' dynamics...
I was more thinking of planes and rockets when writing on dynamics: they are shaped to break through and be tunneled by a non-moving air for stability, and their weight decreased faster than their wing surfaces, making lift easier at smaller scales.
Helicopter are a different realm: they need to survive in the middle of the wind (and turbulence) they create to lift, and they are not tunneled (their body is not aligned on the vertical flow).
Thus, as Temporal mentions it, inertia is important for helicopter stability and it is reduced with weight at smaller scales.
- tomxor 7y ago> I was more thinking of planes and rockets when writing on dynamics: they are shaped to break through and be tunneled by a non-moving air for stability, and their weight decreased faster than their wing surfaces, making lift easier at smaller scales. I suppose there is also relative viscosity to take into consideration? so even if smaller scales are going to be more fidgety and "unstable" in terms of inertia (as TeMPOraL more clearly expressed)... taking aerodynamics into consideration (depending on the design) may provide more significant benefits to dynamic stability at small scales anyway. Without being very scientific, it feels like the small scale dynamics are not merely easier, but significantly different. It's intuitive to see how insignificant aerodynamics are at take off in full scale rockets are compared to models, and how models are going to be more sensitive to aerodynamics than inertia... i suspect the proportions to the problem of dynamic stability might even be flipped.
- heavenlyblue 7y agoYou also have to understand that small-scale models need the time dimension to be slowed down by X too in order to get the same dynamics.