News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by jandrese on Sunday November 14, 2021 @01:29PM (#29219265)
That part was talking about the traditional ground effect. There isn't much study about what happens when you have a ceiling over a helicopter because that doesn't happen very often in real life. Note the discussion of the air flowing off of the blades.

I was thinking more of the low pressure zone above the helicopter being disrupted by the overpass. Apparently it wasn't too bad since the pilot managed the stunt twice without injury, but it's a possibility that would have had me crapping diamonds if I were asked to pull it off.

Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by lisper on Sunday November 14, 2021 @02:00PM (#29219566)
I feel an aircraft-on-a-conveyor-belt moment coming on.

So first of all, GE in a rotorcraft is different from GE on a fixed-wing aircraft. The fundamentals are the same, of course, but in a rotorcraft the relative velocity of the blade/wing isn't connected to the velocity of the airframe the way it is in a fixed-wing aircraft. In a fixed-wing aircraft the velocity of the wing and the velocity of the airframe are the same, of course. But in a rotorcraft things get very complicated. The upshot of all this complication is that the GE effect is reduced as the rotorcraft's airframe starts to move. The faster it goes, the less GE you have. So you might notice some differences while hovering under an overpass, but shooting through at 60 MPH the GE is effectively a no-op.

If you really want to know the gory details you'll have to read up on helicopter theory. It's way too complicated for an HN comment.

Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by ambicapter on Sunday November 14, 2021 @02:53PM (#29220040)
He's not talking about ground effect, he's talking about the overpass above the blades "cutting off" available air for a second.
Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by lisper on Sunday November 14, 2021 @04:59PM (#29221128)
Yes, I get that. "Reverse ground effect" was how the OP phrased it. What exactly do you think would happen in that case? Suppose the available air were "cut off" by the overpass (it wouldn't be, but let's suspend disbelief for a moment). What would be the result?
Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by jandrese on Sunday November 14, 2021 @05:32PM (#29221377)
Loss of lift due to the interruption of the airflow causing the helicopter to crash into the ground at speed? Or suddenly lower pressure above the helicopter causing it to be "sucked up" into the ceiling.

I think the pilot is probably correct that the stunt could only be pulled off at a higher speed where you can outrace the low/high pressure zones the blades are creating.

Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by lisper on Sunday November 14, 2021 @06:06PM (#29221635)
And how is any of that at odds with what I said?
Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by pomian on Sunday November 14, 2021 @03:08PM (#29220179)
I think the term we are looking for would be, ceiling effect? Just recently saw footage of Fred North* flying into and out of a building, so it must be a negligible effect. * helicopter pilot for movies.
Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by naikrovek on Sunday November 14, 2021 @06:37PM (#29221832)
look at the underside of an overpass. it's not a flat surface, but has thick ribs; lots of room for airflow even if the blades were 1" from the underside of the bridge.
Re:The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI by efreak on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @08:43PM (#29248499)
I'm in a bus under a freeway overpass as I type this. I pass under here twice a day. The underside is smooth, possibly to keep it easier to clean. I've definitely seen overpasses that are not smooth underneath, but certainly not all overpasses and tunnels have space in the ceiling.