How the feck??!

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Gook, Jan 24, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Can any helicoptery types (or Sergei!) tell me, HOW THE FECK do these fly? And I thought a Chinook or the Spams new toy the V22 (Osprey? the tiltrotor cant-decide-if-its-a-plane-or-a-chopper thingy) looked risky! But these Russky birds could so easily have a midair collision with themselves, factor in the typical vodka-sodden mechanics working on them and I don't think it'd be worth it for the flying pay (which is probably paid in gherkins anyhoo)!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Fecking crazy, nyet? How often do these fall out of the skies!
     
  2. My understanding is that its the same principle as a Chinook. In this case they are situated on the same head as opposed to having two heads fore and aft, but they are counter rotating blades.

    Ask on PPRUNE on rotorhead forum, loads of Boffins and helicopter test pilots there
     
  3. Top one looks like a "cut and shunt" job to me..lol :)
     
  4. Two top ones are Kamov-27s (helix) and the bottom one is a KA50 (werewolf).

    If you look at the back-end you will see there is no tail rotor so the two main rotors counter-rotate to compensate for this (it stops the swing). Safety record no different from other coaxial tri-blade rotors though but, as mentioned previously, depends on maintenance (or Russian attitude..quicker to replace than repair). Not sure but think, and I stress think, these are used mainly by the navy because they fold up smaller for storage. Hope this helps.
     
  5. Thanks guys. I'm no aviation buff but just saw these pics and thought they looked crazy. The top 2 do look naval but the bottom one appears to be their version of Apache, I don't see how they'd be easier to fold up on a ship though since naval helos have folding tailbooms...

    How do they get the counter-rotation in just 1 shaft then? As Chinook makes sense, they just turn the shafts different ways, but in 1 shaft... Do they have an inner and an outer shaft going in opposing directions? Or a gearbox halfway up?

    Is it just the company Kamov that make these monstrosities and just the Russkies that field them, whereas the West has gone with the Chinook and Osprey designs?

    Ta
    Gook
     
  6. Two shafts, inner and outer shaft. Very good idea doing away with a tail rotor, which are very dangerous and where an initial simple answer to the torque problems of non contra rotaing designs.
    I can think of at least one death in NI due to folk running around back of cab and there at least another two troops who where turned into 'cabbages' by impact with Tail Rotor.
    I would immagine just one complex gear box for two drive shafts.
    If you are not a Buff then it may intrest you to know that the main Gearbox is the 'Hard' part of the design. 'Anyone' can design a Gas Turbine engine of required power output and off the shelf donkeys are available, but a good strong Lightwieght Gearbox is not easy to design and make.
    Westlands where quite good and the Lynx box was a leader in it's field when introduced, even if it have vibration problems.
    Sikorskey did a contra rotating head and this allowed them to eliminate an aerodynamic condition which limits top speed.
    john
     
  7. Monstrosities Gook? - er no. Kamov is considered one of the thoroughbreds of helicopter production, they produce an extensive production line, tested and airworthy which puts the Chinook and Osprey to shame. One would imagine if a Russian designer produced such 'monstrosities', would surely be sent to the salt mines or probably just taken out and shot !!

    Yes, Westlands were good at a lot of things until the Yanks took it over, extracted what they wanted and killed it. :(
     
  8. Whats the russian one with two rotors on the cabin but rather than been on one "propshaft" they are on two seperate in a Y formation
     
  9. You may be referring to the American Kamans;

    Huskie

    [​IMG]

    And the K-Max

    [​IMG]
     
  10. God thats uglier than my mother in law ( and possibly contains less alchohol )

    No I'm sure it was a ruskie, trike undercart , bit like a fat lynx
     
  11. ah silly me

    There must be a ruskie version around
     

    Attached Files:

    • h43.jpg
      File size:
      28.9 KB
      Views:
      2,688
  12. Memory says that on the K Max you change pitch on Main Rotor blades by changing angle of attack on the Blade trim tab, a rod enters the blale from the head.
    Said to be much lighter then conventional powered controls.
    And I too am sure there is a Russian naval heli with the twin canted masts, intermeshing blades and all. A copy of one of the first German Helis.
    john
    There an old tale that the reason Frog heads rotate one way and Yank ones oposite direction was that this Kraut heli was devided 50/50 and strangely the Yank half rotated in same direction as first yank cabs did. The Frog had the gearbox, mast and head that went in opposit direction so now Frog heads are back ta front.
    Should this have gone in Myths thread ?
     
  13. Are you thinking of the Ka-26 'Hoodlum', Polar (and its derivatives)


    [​IMG]

    I think Kamov surpassed themselves with this one, though (v-100 attack helicopter, project abandoned before it got much further than this model)

    [​IMG]
     
  14. I saw a Kamov years ago at the Hannover Air show. Amazing flight capability.
     
  15. The KA-50 Hokum was developed as a single-seat CAS aircraft - the KA-52 had a crew member. Another unusual point about the 50 was the bang seat.
    "Another unique Ka-50 feature is the ejection seat - the main rotors are jettisoned before the pilot's seat is ejected." Extract from International Directory of Military Aircraft 1998-1999. Seems to meet the description of the thread heading!
    Anybody know whether the black and yellow handle was used successfully at any time?