I’m surprised that we don’t use the NOTAR (no Tail Rotor) Technology on our Military Helicopters.
The Russians use Twin counter rotating Technology as seen on this Attack Helicopter.
I would think that the additional moving Parts used to operate the Tail Rotor, not to mention its Achilles Heel tendency would necessitate design changes.
As an aside, I was at an Air Show years ago where they had the Airwolf Helicopter from the TV Show on display.
You would be shocked (maybe not) by the number of people asking the guy behind the rope barrier if it could really do what it does on TV. You know, Supersonic Flight, hidden Rocket Pods , retractable Machine Guns in the Pylons etc.
I was cracking up.
>The Russians use Twin counter rotating Technology as seen on this Attack Helicopter.
>I would think that the additional moving Parts used to operate the Tail Rotor, not to mention its Achilles Heel tendency would necessitate design changes.
The problem with the Russian design is how quickly the chopper flys apart if the blades get out of sync. They had to add a blow up the blades + rocket ejection seat system to make it safe. The real question is how well would that system hold up in combat? With tail rotor you generally have some time to bail out or land if you get hit by ground fire. So until the Russian chopper has some combat experience the jury is still out.
As it stands right not the best attack chopper on the planet is still the older Russian armored ones simply because they take a lot more ground fire than other choppers.
With all due respect, I would think the very complex transmission needed to drive counter-rotating rotors would amount to more moving parts than a simple shaft driving a tail rotor. I’m no expert, but I am a bit of a mechanic, and while I haven’t SEEN such a transmission, I imagine its a mess to produce and maintain, as opposed to an old, trusty turboshaft. Makes sense to me, but I could be wrong. Hopefully someone who knows more than me sets me straight if I am