Kyrilian,
Thanks for questioning this concept, from a technical perspective. The objections that you and others raise may prove to be its demise or, hopefully, they may highlight the obstacles, which can eventually be overcome.
Most will probably agree that, other than the turbine engine, there has not be any quantum leap in rotorcraft technology over the past sixty years. In addition, the vertical flight industry is currently in the doldrums. Some radical changes are necessary to pull it out, be it the tilt rotor, the intermeshing configuration, or what have you.
The following reply to your post is offered; at the risk of boring some
[who have probably moved on to a more interesting thread by now], but with the hope of enticing additional constructive arguments from others:
__________________________________
The issue of symmetry is only in reference to aerodynamic lateral symmetry. The intermeshing Kaman Huskie was used to trail military pilots for a short period of time. It was then discarded because it was too easy to fly.
Consider the Boomerang, symmetry and the world's first vehicle. If the logs that were put under the Egyptian's stones, had their port diameters greater than the starboard diameters. There would be no pyramids, and those poor slaves would still be going in circles.
Gareth D. Padfield said
"The ubiquitous nature of cross-coupling constitutes one of the chief reasons why piloting this type of aircraft requires such high skill levels developed through long training programmes". The intent is to eliminate cross coupling by the use of absolute rigid rotors. It is interesting to note that Kellett attempted to raise one million dollars to produce his 3-bladed intermeshing rotors with high rigidity. Unfortunately, an earlier fatal accident brought down his company.
I have spent my life in the manufacturing industry. The advantages of volume production should not be underestimated.
For decades, western aerodynamic texts have mathematically shown that the tail rotor wastes 8 - 10% of the power. Recently, Kamov has explained to the west that the tail rotor wastes approximately 15% of the power. In addition, the latest aerodynamic text (year 2000), by Leishman (University of Maryland) concurs with Kamov's position. If a craft's gross weight to empty weight is 2:1, then the above constitutes a 30% difference in payload. That is significant!
Kamov and Kaman both produced twin rotor configurations. Kamov went with high disk loading, whereas Kaman elected to have low disk loading and high lift. I suspect that Kaman went to low disk loading because the much larger Sikorsky had the ear of the military and command of the 'conventional' market.
Perhaps Nick is right: Just shut up and build the damn thing.
___________________
Cyclic Hotline,
Another twin rotor admirer.
Thanks.
Dave J.