Thanks so much everyone.
But, haha, I don't give up easily. I might have found a fatal error in my earlier blade design question - I quote myself:
"Most modern rotors in helicopters seem to have constant chord blades where the tip has been twisted donwards towards the tip so as to produce less lift the further away from the hub you get. But the same thing could be achieved by having the chord change (and the twist remain unchanged) - by narrowing the blade the further you go out from the hub, the less lift it would produce (this was common in earlier helicopters). A twisted blade must be so much more expensive and complicated to make, so why was the changing chord design abandoned?"
Now, in an autorotational state, the outer part of the rotor drives the inner part (roughly 1/3 of the blade is driving, as I've been told) by having less angle of attack (or even negative). This can only be achieved by having a twisted blade. Now, let's say we had a constant chord blade design instead (where the angle of attack stays the same over the entire blade), would it be able to autorotate?
Why I'm asking is because I'm almost 100% sure early heli's had CC blades - and they did autorotate. So how did they achieve this?
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 14th May 2007 at 21:37.