Heedm
>
"...the mass of a typical helicopter rotor is higher."<
Respectfully, I think that your are loosing sight of the word 'relative'. If a helicopter had a rotor, where the weight was proportional to that of a gyroscope, the helicopter would never lift off the tarmac. Heck, it probably would have sunk into the tarmac.
_________________
>
"I think you'll find that the theory behind it is the same for gyroscopic precession and aerodynamic precession ."<
I have always agreed with you on this. In fact, during the previous set of postings I did the math to verify it.
________________
The following is another reason for using 'Aerodynamic non-relativistic rotational kinematics' in preference to 'Gyroscopic non-relativistic rotational kinematics'.
The swashplate and also the basic Bell, 2-blade, teetering (normal to span) rotor exhibit
exactly the same characteristic as a gyroscope. I.e. 90-phase offset.
All rotorheads with a flapping hinge offset have a phase offset that is less than 90-degrees. 'Gyroscopic non-relativistic rotational kinematics'
cannot represent this (at least not easily). 'Aerodynamic non-relativistic rotational kinematics' (blade flying to position) can.
Would you agree to this?
_______________
We can't be having Lu's ~ England/USA/Australia/& all point between ~ communication problem. We are probably next door neighbors.
[ 20 November 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]