How the feck??!

#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)!







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
polar69 said:
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
You may be referring to the American Kamans;

Huskie



And the K-Max

 
#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
 
#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)




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

 
#14
I saw a Kamov years ago at the Hannover Air show. Amazing flight capability.
 
#15
Persian_kitten said:
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.
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?
 
#16
"Anybody know whether the black and yellow handle was used successfully at any time?"
Er No but I could name one of my old OC's for Test Pilot.
john
 
#17
Helicopter ejector seat? Crazy! Along with that v100 sketch, they both sound/look more like fighter jets than helos!

The HAVOC was more conventional and not of the double counter-rotating stacked rotor variety I gather?
What do you even call this type of set up for rotors anyway as my literary skills fail me...
 
#18
Gook,

HAVOC ( Mi-28 ) is a conventionally set-up helo, with a tail rotor setup. See this nice wikipedia page for some general info on it.

Cheers,

M_M

edited to remove biffing smileys from "Mi-28" in brackets...
 
#19
It's all about Newton's law - the one about conservation of momentum; in this case its conservation of angular momentum. Essentially for stable flight, the angular momentum imparted by the main rotor should be zero; thus a rotor mass M spinning at high angular velocity V would require a similar directly opposing mass M rotating at angular velocity V1.
M.V must equal -(M1.V1) else the helicopter will yaw!

This can be down either by tail rotor / exhaust gas on a boom (corrective sideways force), or a second similar rotor M1 operating at V1.

The dual-rotor system as used on the Hokum tends to be called the 'coaxial, contrarotating rotor system'...... what a mouthful; least thats what my lecturer called it. (Was one of the few Aircraft Dynamics lectures where i did not fall asleep). Its meant to be a pretty useful bit of kit... the Russian version of the Apache (except without the longbow radar and all the problems).

Global security have a pretty good page on the Hokum.... seems the Turks have bought 145 of the b*ggers
Hokum

SR10
 
#20
Thanks for the link Mr M. Following on from it to the failed Ka50 project with the wierd rotors, and on to a variant of this, the Ka52 (or Ka 50-2?) it says this was a helicopter for air to air combat! Meant to eliminate our helicopters... Mad!

We don't have anything comparable to this do we? Can Apaches be fitted with some sort of antiaircraft weapon like Stinger or HVM, or even coming from the RAF angle, a Sidewinder or ASRAAM? Or would they just have to try and close with the enemy to use their cannons while being blasted out of the skies by Russky air to air copters?

The other option would be to have Tornado F3s or Eurofighter Typhoons on CAP all the time to counter the Russian helos (both AA ones and the normal ones). But they are going to be busy enough fighting their own fights in any war...
So can Apache do air to air, and if it can't, would it be worth putting some missiles on it for this? Or are helicopters for air to air next to useless anyway and not worth bothering about?

I will give it to the Russkies, they are some crazy bastards!! Their Hind was designed to be a troop transport and an attack chopper. Now I know you can re-role Lynx for either of these (put on TOW or take blokes in the back). But their Hinds do them both AT THE SAME TIME!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
SKJOLD ARRSE: Site Issues 0
spank_the_monkey ARRSE: Site Issues 2
PartTimePongo The Intelligence Cell 13

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top