Originally Posted by
dClbydalpha
And for others it allows them to operate in conditions not previously possible and therefore increasing usability of their asset. As a Customer, you take your choice.
Of course, that's why it was designed in the first place, but it has proved to be at a possibly unexpectedly high cost, both financially and as an aircraft payload penalty.
But surely the question here is: why add complication to replace a well proven, simple mechanical tail rotor system that has proved very reliable for decades? It's worth bearing in mind that many tail rotor failures have been caused by external damage - these failures will still occur on an electrically driven system. In my experience (having been flying helicopters for a living for just coming up to forty years and fixed wing for some years prior to that), the items that have proven most unreliable on all the aircraft I've flown have mainly been electrical or electronic. Same with the road vehicles I've been driving since the 1960s. Water ingress is a perpetual issue as well as mechanical ones. Well designed gearboxes are very reliable indeed because they are so simple. Electric motors and generators are not so reliable and need more maintenance.
As far as "saving the environment" goes, noise reduction has been mentioned more than once. From what I've seen very recently, relatively straightforward innovations in rotor blade design seem to be a very good way forward.