If I had to guess at a glance, the pipe-looking things are to guard the rotor against striking the ground. If you mean the things hanging off them, I’d guess that they’re inflatated bladders to spread out the time of impact when landing.
EDIT: Rotor guy is apparently flying a de Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle, and yeah, that’s apparently what they’re for:
The aircraft’s landing gear consisted of airbags at the end of each arm of the frame along with a large rubber float in the middle, providing amphibious capability,[5] although this arrangement was later replaced by a pair of conventional helicopter-type skids.[8]
According the the article linked it didn’t even pass the testing phase, because surprise-surprise guys kept crashing. That was the 50’s in peacetime, and the whole thing probably started because helicopters were the hype of the era and there was a lot of funding.
It is done by allowing fluid to flow through passages between chambers separated with a piston. Your car’s shocks and struts work the same way. There are also ones with external reservoir that may allow for more travel or that can be pressurized to alter resistance.
The fluid pushes on a reservoir of nitrogen that keeps the plane from bottoming out. It is a progressive pressure system, so it gets harder to move the more force is applied.
Ah! Yes, you didn’t mention the pneumatic component. I thought you just meant between two bodies of oil, which would only provide damping and some added moment.
Glancing at Wikipedia, all hydraulic shock absorbers seem to use pneumatic compression. The oil is mostly a mechanical linkage, lubricant, and heat sink. I expect a liquid-only design could work, in a coilover monotube, but the spring would be taking all the compression, while the loose piston moving through oil simply resists change and smooths out the motion. There’s just not much reason to avoid adding a floating piston and some gas at the bottom of that. Underwater applications, maybe.
The guy with no railings above a rotor is the underdog, at least.
What are those projections underneath?
If I had to guess at a glance, the pipe-looking things are to guard the rotor against striking the ground. If you mean the things hanging off them, I’d guess that they’re inflatated bladders to spread out the time of impact when landing.
EDIT: Rotor guy is apparently flying a de Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle, and yeah, that’s apparently what they’re for:
EDIT2: The other one is apparently the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee.
Hmm. I guess that sounds lighter than springs. Do other aircraft have air-based shock absorbers?
Edit:
Lol, so that guy isn’t even a pilot, either. RIP
Maybe even during a war they weren’t able to find any pilots wanting to use those things.
According the the article linked it didn’t even pass the testing phase, because surprise-surprise guys kept crashing. That was the 50’s in peacetime, and the whole thing probably started because helicopters were the hype of the era and there was a lot of funding.
Depends on the aircraft if it has gas or hydraulic shock absorbers. Some lightweight aircraft just have torsion based shock absorption.
How would hydraulic ones work? The entire concept there is that liquids are almost incompressible.
It is done by allowing fluid to flow through passages between chambers separated with a piston. Your car’s shocks and struts work the same way. There are also ones with external reservoir that may allow for more travel or that can be pressurized to alter resistance.
You’d still need some kind of restoring force. Visibly, some cars use metal springs for at least part of that.
The fluid pushes on a reservoir of nitrogen that keeps the plane from bottoming out. It is a progressive pressure system, so it gets harder to move the more force is applied.
Ah! Yes, you didn’t mention the pneumatic component. I thought you just meant between two bodies of oil, which would only provide damping and some added moment.
Glancing at Wikipedia, all hydraulic shock absorbers seem to use pneumatic compression. The oil is mostly a mechanical linkage, lubricant, and heat sink. I expect a liquid-only design could work, in a coilover monotube, but the spring would be taking all the compression, while the loose piston moving through oil simply resists change and smooths out the motion. There’s just not much reason to avoid adding a floating piston and some gas at the bottom of that. Underwater applications, maybe.
Ah! That makes sense.