If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Check out the new Russian Kamov Ka-52 Alligator combat helicopter. It's cool, but it's got nothing on my Syma Apache S109G   (youtube.com) divider line 89
    More: Cool, alligators, Russian Air Force, attack helicopter  
•       •       •

6262 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Jun 2013 at 12:48 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-23 12:22:34 PM
That's a really tall mast for the 2 rotors- wonder how much stress it can take. Also, wouldn't the counter rotating rotors create turbulence for each other?
 
2013-06-23 12:33:30 PM
The Russians have always made some pretty cool choppers.  Perhaps the naturally spinning state of their world due to copious vodka intake just makes them naturals.
 
2013-06-23 01:09:00 PM
WOLVERINES!
 
2013-06-23 01:12:07 PM

Dinki: That's a really tall mast for the 2 rotors- wonder how much stress it can take. Also, wouldn't the counter rotating rotors create turbulence for each other?


Turbulence isn't the problem: beat frequency is.

The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.
 
2013-06-23 01:22:01 PM
According to wiki

A Hokum is a single-seat Russian with the distinctive coaxial rotor system of the Kamov design bureau. It was designed in the 1980s and adopted for service in the Russian army in 1995.

Cool. But kind of old.
 
2013-06-23 01:23:43 PM
Cool, but like their rocket program...always look so clunky!
 
2013-06-23 01:32:00 PM
Anyone else have the Airwolf theme start playing in their heads while watching that?

No?   OK, then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBd6ighzqYA
 
2013-06-23 01:40:13 PM

FrancoFile: Dinki: That's a really tall mast for the 2 rotors- wonder how much stress it can take. Also, wouldn't the counter rotating rotors create turbulence for each other?

Turbulence isn't the problem: beat frequency is.

The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.


I know hardly anything about coaxial rotors, but I would image that the added mechanical complexity would have to at least somewhat offset the benefit of not having a tail rotor. Most standard design helicopters are still flyable with a complete loss of t/r thrust above a certain airspeed, provided that all the parts are at least still in place, if not working properly.

Then again, Kamov keeps building them this way, so there must be something to it.
 
2013-06-23 01:41:55 PM
Also, "pilot-sniper" is an awesome title. Sounds even better than "copilot-gunner," even if it means the same thing.
 
2013-06-23 01:42:00 PM
The contra-rotating blades are a staple of Russian design and rightly so. The benefits in a helicopter are obvious, especially at high speed. The only question I have is why they didn't include a cowl
 
2013-06-23 01:42:23 PM

Hiro Nakamura: FrancoFile: Dinki: That's a really tall mast for the 2 rotors- wonder how much stress it can take. Also, wouldn't the counter rotating rotors create turbulence for each other?

Turbulence isn't the problem: beat frequency is.

The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.

I know hardly anything about coaxial rotors, but I would image that the added mechanical complexity would have to at least somewhat offset the benefit of not having a tail rotor. Most standard design helicopters are still flyable with a complete loss of t/r thrust above a certain airspeed, provided that all the parts are at least still in place, if not working properly.

Then again, Kamov keeps building them this way, so there must be something to it.


Failure of mechanical part != combat damage.  Tail rotor shut down in the middle of a combat situation usually means loss of the aircraft.
 
2013-06-23 01:46:14 PM

FrancoFile: Hiro Nakamura: FrancoFile: Dinki: That's a really tall mast for the 2 rotors- wonder how much stress it can take. Also, wouldn't the counter rotating rotors create turbulence for each other?

Turbulence isn't the problem: beat frequency is.

The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.

I know hardly anything about coaxial rotors, but I would image that the added mechanical complexity would have to at least somewhat offset the benefit of not having a tail rotor. Most standard design helicopters are still flyable with a complete loss of t/r thrust above a certain airspeed, provided that all the parts are at least still in place, if not working properly.

Then again, Kamov keeps building them this way, so there must be something to it.

Failure of mechanical part != combat damage.  Tail rotor shut down in the middle of a combat situation usually means loss of the aircraft.


Are you suggesting that one rotor is statistically likely to be taken out, leaving the other rotor without a counter torque?
 
2013-06-23 01:46:21 PM
2 seat version of an 80s-designed helicopter that went into service in 1995?

I guess. I doubt this could ever be made "stealthy" though.
 
2013-06-23 01:55:50 PM

Meltro: FrancoFile: Hiro Nakamura: FrancoFile: Dinki: That's a really tall mast for the 2 rotors- wonder how much stress it can take. Also, wouldn't the counter rotating rotors create turbulence for each other?

Turbulence isn't the problem: beat frequency is.

The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.

I know hardly anything about coaxial rotors, but I would image that the added mechanical complexity would have to at least somewhat offset the benefit of not having a tail rotor. Most standard design helicopters are still flyable with a complete loss of t/r thrust above a certain airspeed, provided that all the parts are at least still in place, if not working properly.

Then again, Kamov keeps building them this way, so there must be something to it.

Failure of mechanical part != combat damage.  Tail rotor shut down in the middle of a combat situation usually means loss of the aircraft.

Are you suggesting that one rotor is statistically likely to be taken out, leaving the other rotor without a counter torque?


No, I'm suggesting that tail rotors are extremely vulnerable in combat.  Anything you can do to eliminate that 20+ foot long chain of mechanical items, or protect them from projectiles and ground debris, is a good thing.  That's why we've developed armored/ducted nacelles, the NOTAR system, etc.

Don't have them on hand, but plenty of stats from Vietnam to today shows that a very large % of aircraft loss is due to damage to the tail rotor assembly.
 
2013-06-23 01:55:56 PM
7/10, would bang.
 
2013-06-23 01:59:02 PM

gayb: 7/10, would bang.


cdn.meme.li
 
2013-06-23 02:30:12 PM
I was waiting for the wing walker to come out.
 
2013-06-23 02:36:12 PM

FrancoFile: Don't have them on hand, but plenty of stats from Vietnam to today shows that a very large % of aircraft loss is due to damage to the tail rotor assembly.


This is true, and it makes me wonder why other than a handful of Sikorski concept/prototypes, coaxial rotors haven't even amounted to a blip on the radar in the West. Coaxial rotors have their own issues, but their advantages are in areas (like damage resistance, top speed and power required/weight) that are really, really useful areas to see some improvement.
The S-97 could render this statement outdated though, if it gets built.
 
2013-06-23 02:38:51 PM

FrancoFile: The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.


How is no tail rotor more beneficial than dual rotors? If anything NOTAR would be the best route.
 
2013-06-23 02:42:00 PM

Popcorn Johnny: FrancoFile: The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.

How is no tail rotor more beneficial than dual rotors? If anything NOTAR would be the best route.


???  You use dual main rotors in order to avoid having to use the tail rotor.  Not sure I understand your question.  NOTAR mentioned above as well.
 
2013-06-23 02:43:33 PM
I can't believe they didn't crash it.
 
2013-06-23 02:45:21 PM

FrancoFile: Tail rotor shut down in the middle of a combat situation usually means loss of the aircraft.


The loss of a tail rotor is only a problem when there isn't sufficient forward airspeed.
 
2013-06-23 02:48:53 PM
That looks like it would be fun to fly.
 
2013-06-23 02:51:09 PM

FrancoFile: ???  You use dual main rotors in order to avoid having to use the tail rotor.


Yes, I know that. I'm asking why you think that's a better solution? You're trading a tail rotor for a much more complex main rotor system.
 
2013-06-23 02:57:35 PM

Popcorn Johnny: FrancoFile: Tail rotor shut down in the middle of a combat situation usually means loss of the aircraft.

The loss of a tail rotor is only a problem when there isn't sufficient forward airspeed.


cuz helicopters always operate with lots of forward airspeed
 
2013-06-23 03:01:44 PM
The Russians have been using a two rotor system for a while. There is a whole line of Kamovs that use them for a vast array of duties such as the KA27, KA226, KA31, and KA50 all use it. The twin rotors make them far more maneuverable and able to do tasks a traditional rotor design can't.
 
2013-06-23 03:04:07 PM

jaytkay: cuz helicopters always operate with lots of forward airspeed


Well during combat, they try not to hover too much. When I was in, we had a few tail rotor failures and not one resulted in a crash.
 
2013-06-23 03:12:59 PM

Popcorn Johnny: FrancoFile: ???  You use dual main rotors in order to avoid having to use the tail rotor.

Yes, I know that. I'm asking why you think that's a better solution? You're trading a tail rotor for a much more complex main rotor system.



I'm explaining, not advocating.  There's more than one way to skin a cat.
 
2013-06-23 03:16:40 PM

limeyfellow: The Russians have been using a two rotor system for a while. There is a whole line of Kamovs that use them for a vast array of duties such as the KA27, KA226, KA31, and KA50 all use it. The twin rotors make them far more maneuverable and able to do tasks a traditional rotor design can't.


The upside is lift and speed.
Downsides are (usually) mechanical complication, vibration and noise.
It seems the Russians sorted out the engineering part.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

The US looked at it for faster transport helicopters, but put it back on the shelf until recently with the S-97 raider.
 
2013-06-23 03:22:18 PM

Popcorn Johnny: jaytkay: cuz helicopters always operate with lots of forward airspeed

Well during combat, they try not to hover too much. When I was in, we had a few tail rotor failures and not one resulted in a crash.


Cuz the ability to hover is not the entire reason helicopters are used in combat.
 
2013-06-23 03:23:03 PM

Dinki: That's a really tall mast for the 2 rotors- wonder how much stress it can take. Also, wouldn't the counter rotating rotors create turbulence for each other?


They usually account for this stuff when they set up counter-rotating systems.
 
2013-06-23 03:25:50 PM

Frothy Panties: Cool, but like their rocket program...always look so clunky!


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Not as big as a HIND, but still it's like a flying elephant in comparison to something like the Apache...
 
2013-06-23 03:28:21 PM

jaytkay: Cuz the ability to hover is not the entire reason helicopters are used in combat.


Well no, it's not. Kind of makes for an easy target, wouldn't you say?
 
2013-06-23 03:28:50 PM

indarwinsshadow: According to wiki

A Hokum is a single-seat Russian with the distinctive coaxial rotor system of the Kamov design bureau. It was designed in the 1980s and adopted for service in the Russian army in 1995.

Cool. But kind of old.


Yeah, pretty much all helicopter programs are "kind of old".


Here's a piece from the wii page on the Apache, fo comparison:


Originally, the Apache started life as the Model 77 developed by Hughes Helicopters for the United States Army's Advanced Attack Helicopter program to replace the AH-1 Cobra, and was first flown on 30 September 1975. The AH-64 was introduced to U.S. Army service in April 1986.
 
2013-06-23 03:43:01 PM

Parthenogenetic: Anyone else have the Airwolf theme start playing in their heads while watching that?


Yes.
 
2013-06-23 04:14:47 PM

Mikey1969: Frothy Panties: Cool, but like their rocket program...always look so clunky!

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Not as big as a HIND, but still it's like a flying elephant in comparison to something like the Apache...


The Soviet/Russian designs favored bigger/stronger/harder-hitting for a good part of the cold war, IIRC even the Sukhoi and MiG rip-offs of our fighter jets are actually larger than their western cousins.  The HIND was designed as a gunship, not an assault chopper (even though it's designated as both).  It's also got the room to be a armed troop transport or medical evac.  The Soviets made sure it could handle several jobs.

Oddly enough, the HIND is actually lighter than the Apache by about two tons when empty, but just about the same length.  It also has a lower max weight that it can lift even though it has a larger main rotor and slightly more powerful engines.  It's also taller, and that extra makes it more liable to be blown about by crosswinds.
 
2013-06-23 04:26:26 PM

Saberus Terras: Oddly enough, the HIND is actually lighter than the Apache by about two tons when empty, but just about the same length.


What? A hind is around 7,000 lbs heavier than an Apache.
 
2013-06-23 04:38:45 PM

Saberus Terras: The Soviet/Russian designs favored bigger/stronger/harder-hitting for a good part of the cold war, IIRC even the Sukhoi and MiG rip-offs of our fighter jets are actually larger than their western cousins.  The HIND was designed as a gunship, not an assault chopper (even though it's designated as both).  It's also got the room to be a armed troop transport or medical evac.  The Soviets made sure it could handle several jobs.

Oddly enough, the HIND is actually lighter than the Apache by about two tons when empty, but just about the same length.  It also has a lower max weight that it can lift even though it has a larger main rotor and slightly more powerful engines.  It's also taller, and that extra makes it more liable to be blown about by crosswinds.


Yeah, that was definitely the Russian(Soviet) thing back in the day, big, big, big... I'm fascinated by the aircraft, ships and land vehicles that they have tried to make work over the years, some of those things are insanely large.

I do have to say that the HIND is one of my favorite choppers when you want something bad-ass. Load up those weapons pods, and the thing is scary ash shiat. I remember when I first watched Red Dawn(The real Red Dawn, mind you), and they had that HIND come over the mountain.

Of course, the APache is on that list, but I also have a sweet spot for the Cobra Gunship, but that one is mostly because it's so thin, it looks like you can sneak it into someone's backyard. It looks stealthy and dangerous. :-)
 
2013-06-23 04:54:19 PM

Meltro: FrancoFile: Hiro Nakamura: FrancoFile: Dinki: That's a really tall mast for the 2 rotors- wonder how much stress it can take. Also, wouldn't the counter rotating rotors create turbulence for each other?

Turbulence isn't the problem: beat frequency is.

The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.

I know hardly anything about coaxial rotors, but I would image that the added mechanical complexity would have to at least somewhat offset the benefit of not having a tail rotor. Most standard design helicopters are still flyable with a complete loss of t/r thrust above a certain airspeed, provided that all the parts are at least still in place, if not working properly.

Then again, Kamov keeps building them this way, so there must be something to it.

Failure of mechanical part != combat damage.  Tail rotor shut down in the middle of a combat situation usually means loss of the aircraft.

Are you suggesting that one rotor is statistically likely to be taken out, leaving the other rotor without a counter torque?


Tail rotors are a known wek point on a helicopter, and are what enemies like to target if they are trying to bring one down.
 
2013-06-23 04:58:28 PM

Popcorn Johnny: FrancoFile: Tail rotor shut down in the middle of a combat situation usually means loss of the aircraft.

The loss of a tail rotor is only a problem when there isn't sufficient forward airspeed.


I'm sure that there are a lot of dead souls in Vietnam who are glad that you have figured this out.
 
2013-06-23 05:03:49 PM

Mikey1969: I'm sure that there are a lot of dead souls in Vietnam who are glad that you have figured this out.


Are you really trying to compare the role of modern combat helicopters to those in use during Vietnam?
 
2013-06-23 05:27:04 PM

Popcorn Johnny: FrancoFile: The major advantage of counter-rotating main rotors is you don't need a tail rotor, or any of the alternatives for counteracting main rotor torque).  That's a big plus for a combat machine.

How is no tail rotor more beneficial than dual rotors? If anything NOTAR would be the best route.


NOTAR is a bigger target.
 
2013-06-23 05:27:16 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Saberus Terras: Oddly enough, the HIND is actually lighter than the Apache by about two tons when empty, but just about the same length.

What? A hind is around 7,000 lbs heavier than an Apache.


Oh, derp.  I was failing to pay attention to the mass units.  kg vs. lbs.  My error.
 
2013-06-23 05:30:10 PM
No, I'm comparing the fact that helicopters crash when the tail rotor goes out. Also, many of our "modern combat helicopters" have their roots in Vietnam, even the origins of the Apache are from there, the BlackHawk was used in Vietnam, and the Cobra Gunship dates to back then as well.

Either way, my point is that there are hundreds of dead people who would dispute your "tail rotors aren't all THAT important" implication. Yes, you can land if you lose your tail rotor, but that doesn't make tail rotors unnecessary.
 
2013-06-23 05:34:33 PM

Mikey1969: the BlackHawk was used in Vietnam


I believe you're thinking of the Huey. The Blackhawk wasn't introduced until 1979.
 
2013-06-23 05:44:23 PM

Popcorn Johnny: FrancoFile: ???  You use dual main rotors in order to avoid having to use the tail rotor.

Yes, I know that. I'm asking why you think that's a better solution? You're trading a tail rotor for a much more complex main rotor system.


Coaxial rotors allow all of the engine power to be put into lift, and since there's a blade swinging forward on both sides of the helicopter, it won't have the same assymetric lift problem of a conventional helo. This means it can be much faster. That's presumably why Sikorski included it on their new scout/attack design.

All the same advantages as a tandem rotor system like the Chinook, but useable in a smaller helicopter.
 
2013-06-23 05:45:41 PM
Also, NOTAR sucks. Just as the Army.
 
2013-06-23 05:46:59 PM

Cid_Highwind: Mikey1969: the BlackHawk was used in Vietnam

I believe you're thinking of the Huey. The Blackhawk wasn't introduced until 1979.


Sorry yes, the Huey. My bad.
 
2013-06-23 05:47:36 PM
*ask
 
2013-06-23 05:48:43 PM
Does a dual rotor help with maneuvering and speed? Or is it just a design decision to avoid a tail rotor?
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report