Coriolis vs Conservation of Angular momentum

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie

F=mA.

Apply some pitch from the cyclic via the swash plate. The increased AoA produces lift, a Force. This lift acts on the mass of the blade, and accelerates it upwards. But that acceleration takes time for the blade to change position. The maximum force applied, Lift, is around 90 degrees in advance of the maximum deflection of the blade. It took time, and the blade rotated around 90 degrees in that time. Lighter blades, like the R22, move a little quicker, and only need 78 degrees of advance angle. Each blade has its own forces and movements, and (in multi-blade systems) acts almost independently of its mates. The "disk" is the visual blur to our eyes, it isn't a real disk or a gyroscope.

A gyroscope is a rigid, solid thing, no hinges, no flexing, nothing that moves, other than a heavy mass spinning on an axis. A rotor system has feathering hinges, offset flapping hinges, drag dampers, the blades flex and twist, and all sorts of reasons why it only LOOKS like a gyroscope. Gurgle up Nick Lappos and read his "Helicopter Urban Myths", he has a bit more knowledge than most of us on Proon combined. Read John Dixson too.

You said it takes time in your last post, I asked you why it takes time, and you didn't say why, but just repeated that it takes time again. (You also ignored where I explained why.)

If you're suggesting that the lag is because of the gradual application of the force (and overcoming of the blade's inertia), that doesn't explain the phenomenon because the same thing happens to the spacecraft performing the crosstrack maneuver with an instantaneous rather than gradual force; and for the entirety of the 90 degree lag, the craft is not undergoing a force, nor is it accelerating, upward. So it must be something other than the graduality of the force or inertia.

You also differentiate a gyroscope from a rotor based on being rigid vs not, but that doesn't explain your distinction because the same behavior happens with the spacecraft orbit, which is not only not rigid, but there is no matter even there, except an infinitesimally small bit out at the periphery. So, "not rigid" fails as an escape from gyroscopic behavior.

Yes the "disk" is a visual blur (in addition to a useful abstraction in other respects) but my point still stands that if the individual blade is knocked upward at a certain point, if it is to assume the flap position that corresponds with that pitch/roll input with no phase lag, teleportation would be required. For example, in an American-turning rotor, a left roll input (trying to tilt the disk to the left) that knocks the blade up at the 3 o'clock position can not possibly move the blade up at that position, regardless of blade mass or amount of force, or inertia, or anything. The best that can possibly happen is that it begins to move upward at that position, reaching a peak at some later point.