We have had this discussion before but I still find it interesting.
When I look at it from a Newtonian mechanics point of view I see that there is little argument for power change (as per the first post). However there are plenty of pilots with many more hours than myself who state that this is not the case.
No need for power change? Wow, these plenty of pilots may not have noticed the altitude and/or airspeed they lost or most likely they did not notice the subtle collective increase they
unconsciously did.
I have trouble with the accelerating mass theory relative to the Earth as mass is not related to gravity and this acceleration would still be required in space
Sorry - Mass is a term used in the JAR-OPS/EU-OPS these days. Please substitute mass with weight which
is relative to gravity for people to understand.
In space?? There is no aerodynamic lift, no wings/rotors required, no downwind turns, but still a requirement for additional energy if you change the flight path vector.
As such I have this question:
If you execute the turn with a lot of pedal input, does this mean that the helicopter rotates within the airflow without accelerating through the circular turn and hence will require power for the downwind leg ? The alternative of a 'pedal free' turn means that (in theory) the helicopter accelerates around the turn and hence maintains the same IAS.
This is interesting; First of all. if you do the turn with a lot of pedal input, you are probably flying uncoordinated which at some forward speed will require additional energy (power).
There is no difference from the earlier scenario if you are going into a downwind flight situation, the aircraft still needs to be accelerated using engine power or altitude. Nothing is free.
