Could be a Good Summer for Helo Fans

a reply to: SirDrinksalot

Other than Kamov, I don't think any other helo company made a coaxial attack helo. There were a few other companies that made choppers with that kind of rotor design: Gyrodyne, Cierva and Gyroplane Laboratoire .

As far as why the idea hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) more than it has, I'm not sure. There are a long list of benefits to a coaxial rotor helo (no dis-symmetry of lift, no need for power robbing counter torque systems, increase payload, increase efficiency, no "chopper" slap sound).
Maybe the added complexity and maintenance requirements scared off some of the bigger Western helicopter manufacturers from making production models as of yet. We will have to see if Sikorsky will be the first.

a reply to: SirDrinksalot
You're testing my memory,lol. I think the origins of the interleaving rotor system dates back to WW2 Germany with the Flettner aircraft. The Kaman Husky series helos and the Kmax here in the US were commercially a failure due to the extremely slow speed even for helicopters. They had a good payload but could only fly faster as it burned off fuel. Not until they got turbine engines did things improve. As I understand it, the Husky's greatest accomplishment was as a logging helo in the northwest.

I think there is a fellow in southern Michigan named Dick Degraw who built one as a homebuilt.

As for the coaxial system, again there's a couple of two seat homebuilts in Poland. Coaxial helos are more complex therefore maintenance hogs and with that more expensive to operate. My major concern is their autorotational ability, if any. On the plus side, they are faster and have no torque effect because of the opposite turning rotors.

BTW, Kamov is now building the Ka 60 that looks like our Blackhawk...go figure!

a reply to: projectvxn

I still have several buds in guard aviation and they tell me that the OH 58 are to be retired and the guard Apaches have to be returned to the active army. The UH 72 is to be trainers at Rucker and the only thing the guard will fly is the Uh 60....Is this rumor true!

a reply to: buddah6

Yes it is. That is 100% accurate.

a reply to: projectvxn
Is it full authority? I had read that S 70's had auto hover and autopilot but I wasn't aware that it was fully FBW. The first time that I was aware of FBW in helos was in the Commanche which wasn't working in all regimes of flight at that time. I wasn't aware the technology had migrated into other helicopters.

a reply to: buddah6

The S70i comes in both FBW and SAS augmented electrohydromechanical flight control system.

Its a civilian mike model and the Israelis seem to like the FBW version just fine.

I'm not hands on familiar with the FBW version. I'm only familiar with the military H60M electrohydromechanical version. The S70i also uses T706 GE engines and its rigging is different to compensate for the additional torque provided by the beefed up engines. I am only familiar with the T700 - 701 C and D engines and the specific rigging.

I think they all kind of look silly to me. Doesn't the Osprey have a horrible safety record? I sure hope some of those tilt rotor designs are better...

One of the pics reminds me of a Vietnam-era Huey. They should hire some guys from ILM and Hollywood to design something awesome, then have engineers work to make it flyable.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yes and no. The early Osprey, had multiple crashes, and accidents, but the Osprey 2.0 as they call it, redesigned the software and made other changes. The redesign has a very good safety record, with the latest two crashes being pilot error, and not related to the aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Th UH-72 have much the same problems as a lot of other Airbus (formerly Eurocopter) aircraft. They did not certify civilian models above 50 C. at sea level. That means that at higher temps they cannot be legally operated by CIVILIANS, especially here in the desert. Aside from the new 350B3 most of their products can carry very little payload at warm to hot temps. As well, parts are a constant battle, with even routine maintenance parts being back ordered constantly. Of course, if ordered AOG, at two to three times the price, they are available.

a reply to: rockflier

Oh of course. It's amazing how fast you can get parts when you have to pay a ridiculous amount of money.

a reply to: rockflier
Isn't the UH 72 the same as the EC 145? Doesn't that helo have an unusual fuel system where the pilot has to switch between tanks and pumps as fuel is burnt off? All these new helos seem cool to me since the last one I flew was a "H" model Huey. The only aircraft that I flew "in" still in the inventory is the Chinook and C-12.

a reply to: buddah6

I am not sure about the 72. I have only flown the AS350 BA, B1, B2, and B3, as well as the EC130B4 and EC130 T2. They have a single fuel tank with 2 fuel pumps. They will suction flow supposedly and will definitely operate with 1 working, but takeoff with 1 inop is not allowed.

a reply to: rockflier

Sorry for the questions but I'm a hopeless rotorhead...lol. My last 14 years in the guard I flew FW and didn't get many opportunities to rub elbows the RW guys.

I've always been interested in the new rotary wing technologies some of which are over my head but interested none-the- less.