Copter Cody asked:
Who believes that the new NOTAR systems should be standard on most all single engine systems?
Nick sez:
Not the US Army. The NOTAR equipped OH-6's they tried were so poor they retrofitted them back with tail rotors. The NOTAR is really a very ineffecient tail rotor buried inside the tail cone, with enough lost energy to cost at least one passenger of payload in a 4 passenger aircraft. The noise is quite a bit lower, and it is clearly safer if you stick your tail into obstructions, so you have choices.
Cody said:
All of the statistics show that a machine with the NOTAR system is significantly safer as well as better handling and is much quiter. They say that the helicopter is more flyer-friendly.
Nick sez:
NOTARS are quirky and not particularly user friendly, that's why they need a built in stability system to quell their basically neutral stability. Nothing like swapping ends at 100 knots to make you disagree with Cody.
One great topic we could toss around is the concept of the natural give and take of design, where each attribute gives some benifit and costs some panalty. Beware of any question that front loads the attribute but forgets to mention the price tag. The best way to phrase the question is "Who wants to lose 20% of the payload of their helicopter to have a protected, quieter tail?" Some folks will say Yes, and that's OK, but at least they have answered the whole question.