Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The article states "Most helicopters have a single main rotor, but torque created by its aerodynamic drag must be countered by an opposed torque."

This is factually incorrect. The torque is not created by aerodynamic drag, it's the result of an equal and opposite reaction force (Newton's Second Law). It happens in a vacuum. Spacecraft have reaction wheels for attitude control that work on this principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've thought about this some more. There are at least two main effects here. There is conservation of angular momentum purely in the rotation of the blades and the body of the helicopter plus there is the equal and opposite reaction to the continued "pushing" of the blades against the air.
As the angular speed of the rotors changes (e.g. from rest to spinning) their angular momentum changes and the tail rotor has to exert an equal and opposite thrust to compensate.
When the helicopter is in flight, as the article correctly states, there is aerodynamic drag on the blades (as with aeroplane wings) which the engine must push against. Since the blades rotate, this manifests as a torque, for which the tail rotor must compensate. (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental helicopter by Dr. Boothezaat in 1923[edit]

I'm reading through old Time Magazine issues. The March 1923 issue discusses Thomas Edison sending Dr. Boothezaat a congratulations for a test of a helicopter by remaining in the air for 2 min 45 sec at a height of 15 feet. Also see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talkcontribs)

NASA Mars helicopter[edit]

This paragraph needs updating to reflect the fact that the NASA Mars helicopter (Ingenuity) has successfully flown many missions on Mars. Pawprintoz (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for heli- and -copter[edit]

The source is not available online and is in French.

And so I got curious: what are the reasons why the word isn't analysed helic- and -pter?

I'm assuming the source goes into some detail. Or, if you have another source discussing heli- and -copter?

CapnZapp (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because that is how it's pronounced in English. We say "heli-copter", not "helic-opter", which is difficult for most native English speakers to say. BilCat (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you believe you have adequately answered the issue, but you did so by posting an unsourced speculation here on the talk page while removing context for the reader on the actual article page. If you are unsure what my issue is, feel free to ask. Otherwise I will assume you understand full well what made me start this talk section, User:BilCat, and I invite you to actually fix it on the article page. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look it up in an English dictionary, and see how the syllables are divided. But to be honest, your questions here are straying into WP:FORUM territory, and are really beyond the scope of a generalist encyclopedia. If you can find a reliable source that discusses why "helicopter" is not analyzed as "helic-opter", then you might be able to add it to the article, if it can be shown to relevant to the topic. BilCat (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep assuming I am asking for my sake. Please stop doing so. I am asking in order to highlight there is an opportunity to improve the page. Please stop explaining and answering to me here on talk - instead consider answering by improving our article. That's the end goal here. So please assume your fellow editors understand the purpose of this talk page rather than assuming they confuse it for WP:FORUM. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our sentence is:

For various reasons,[specify] the word is often erroneously, from an etymological point of view, analysed by English speakers into heli- and copter,

which makes the following explicit and implicit claims:

  1. the word is analysed by English speakers into heli- and -copter
  2. presumably instead of helik- and -pter
  3. that this is done for "various" reasons
  4. and finally that this is etymologically erroneous

Now then, does anyone have access to our source (Cottez 1980) that can contribute? Our only other source, Free Dictionary, is of questionable quality and does not go into sufficient detail. Otherwise the entire sentence becomes dodgy. We should not make the third claim without going into any details of what those reasons are, it makes the entire sentence very vague. CapnZapp (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, lead with that. BilCat (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem here isn't what I led with. The problem here was your preconceived notions. The fix here is easy: change your ways and assume basic competence, please. CapnZapp (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2023[edit]

Dima Dov (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky ukrainian-born engineer, not russian-born.[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. If I understand correctly, when he was born, Kiev was part of Russia. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024[edit]

I want to edit something because it doesn’t seem right and giving wrong information about helicopters. You should have also all the answer to helicopters

}} (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]