I just cant fathom why every helicopter doesnt have an eject

>>35047545
unless you can get the rotors out of the way or design it so that they get broken up during ejection, theres a good chance you get decapitated by them no?

>>35047554
its already done on the Ka's
and its 2 sets of them

>>35047545
>eject
>get killed by the spinny thing
really makes me thingk

>>35047565
>>35047554

fuck cant you just watch the 1st video?

>>35047565
do you have rust in your brain?
the Ka's rotors are BLOWN AWAY
NO SPINNY THING IS THERE TO KILL YOU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC7Gr8oOQnE
look at 0:12
rotors are blown away in all directions, only then does the ejection seat eject

If you blow the rotors away, you cant autorotate.

/k/ is retarded i give up
somebody mop this thread please

who do you need to remove the rotors away? you can just eject to the side or down

I dont know anything about helicopter engineering, but this is my 2 cents:
1. Incorporating such a system in a helicopter (I think) would be a pain in the ass. How do you get it reliable? If the system fails, and you are suddenly without rotors, it is gonna suck.

2. Heli's operate at much lower altitudes then planes. Maybe you dont even have the time to deploy a parachute properly, and then you invest in a expensive system that will maybe have little to no effect.

3. Not really an argument, but more of a clue. The fact that the Russians only designed such a system for a few models is also a sign that it isnt high on the priority list for them. Which makes me believe that if almost no one does it, there must be a good reason for it.

That all I can think of. interesting question though!

>>35047554
>>35047565
>illiterates have no idea how the Ka-52 does its ejection before shitposting
Really makes you think

>>35047589
>crashing toward the ground
>eject down

>>35047565
>>35047554
This is the sheer stupidity of the average /k/ poster

>>35047545

Likely because weight and internal volume on helicopters is at an even bigger premium than it is for fixed wing aviation. The reduction in range and payload for fitting a two seat ejection system is significant. Consider that the Ka-50/52 empty weighs around ~2.5 tonnes more than the AH-64E, with the Apache considered one of the heavier Western attack helicopters.

>>35047545
Because it adds a shitload of weight and in general, helos aren't going to operate at an altitude where it's safe to eject without an extremely large rocket booster

>>35047578
Underrated post.

>>35047596
>The fact that the Russians only designed such a system for a few models
KA52 has ejection and Mi28 shoots rotors and pilot can escape so basically all Russian attack helicopters have some kind of ejection seats/escape system

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e42_1429167831

The guy is still dead.

I can think of several reasons why helicopters generally do not have ejection seats.

A helicopter pilot is much more likely to survive a crash landing than, say, a fixed wing jet pilot. In most cases ejecting would be less survivable than staying in the aircraft and attempting to recover because of low altitude, the aircraft spinning, and lack of a g-suit.

When you add an ejection system, you add a shit ton more weight and complexity to an already complex system. You not only need to have a much heavier seat, but also need to add explosives or rockets to each rotor as well as in the canopy.

Besides attack helos, most helicopters have some sort of aircrew or are designed to carry equipment or personnel. The point of ejecting is to save the pilot's life, but in these cases staying with the aircraft and trying to recover is of a greater priority.

This being said, if I were to design some sort of helo ejection seat, I would have timed explosives on each individual blade that make sure every blade's ejection trajectory is directly behind the helo. The ejection seat would propel the pilot forward instead of upwards to minimize the chance of the pilot getting killed or seriously injured from the g-forces.

>>35047554
>>35047565
dude

>>35047545
>eject upwards
>get chopped in half
great system

>>35047554
>>35047565
Learn to read

>>35047554
>>35047565
Add me to the epic screencap.

>>35047798
>helos aren't going to operate at an altitude where it's safe to eject without an extremely large rocket booster
Zero-zero ejection?

because having explosives on your blades is a bad idea

>>35047545
They typically don't use the seats anyway and usually attempt to crash land the helicopter.

>>35047545
Yeah, and what's stopping the pilot(s) from becoming mincemeat?

Jesus Christ /k/ is full of fucktards.

>>35049659
>"i somehow found a flaw that no aero engineer ever thougt of"

>All these idiots ITT who can't fathom the possibility of removing the rotor blades before ejection.

>>35048384
>>35049659
Literally go back to school and learn how to read you stupid niggers

When you pop the blades it's going to be very unstable and no telling what direction you'll eject towards. Also helicopters can autorotate which is very handy if you were to have a dual engine failure. In general most military helicopters can take quite a hard landing, with areas meant to collapse to absorb impact and components that strut down.

Apache pilot