Hi Dave, yes I have read that and it always captured my interest how easy that intermesher must have been. However there seems to be other ways to open the same bottle
. It seems there are indeed even less complex and safer alternatives than any twin rotored "helicraft".
On the risk of going offtopic let me put it this way:
( let me say that I in my helicopter theory journey have seen accepted and denied countless designs).
Compare a structural/gear failure in intermesher/tandem/chinok and a single-rotor.
I understand that the each kind of helicopter got "two rotors" but there are diferences I think. At a gear failur the intermesher/tandem will lead to sever destruction as yaw/roll/ptich is instantly lost. A single-rotor will have only instant yaw loss of control which is way less dangerous as there are ways to make a safety action.
Furthermore any rotor disturbances in one of the rotors of intermesher/tandem/chinook/coaxial will lead to huge control losses in yaw, pitch and roll at the same time as the weight of the helicopter is constantly being carried by these two rotors.
To put it simply, yes multi rotors are great and symmetrical when everything goes fine but very sensitive to failures differences inbetween rotors. Now unless you have 25 rotors lifting you up(where a rotorfailure is insignificant ) a twinrotor-copter will forever be an insanely dangerous thing when a rotor differs from its twin
.
Yes I believe heli development has reached a halt over 40 years ago but there is a reason a single rotor is good: if soemthing goes wrong it is about a one center, one axis, one point of thrust and one point to go down, 1 point to fall strait! a multi heli will fall down and in a cirkus style.
I am trying to get a whole picture of it all.
Levi