N.L.,
While I would agree with
most of the content of your dissertation on the Notar system. It's undertones reek of an author resistant to change, and reluctant to accept that something else may work. It certainly not the writings of an innovative, forward thinking aviation enthusiast, and certainly not the writings of an aviation engineer, unless, of course, there is an old wound being scratched.
I was going to correct you on the 'rudder' reference and description, but 'john du' pruyting' has helped me out. Although jdp, I am not quite sure why people consider the Notar system more complex. I think that with time and experience peoples attitudes to this may change.
Where I do disagree with NL is here,
Notar robs performance (lost payload or higher engine temp), it is a sloppier control system, it needs more parts and complexity, and it costs more.
From what I know (and I hope 'md 600 Driver' will agree), neither the 600, or the 207E equipped 902 are short of power. The 902 needs
fewer parts. It does not have an intermediate gearbox. The lowest time life part is probably the TT strap on the 902 at 3034 hrs. Sloppiness is like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder (in this case pilot). As for costs, having looked at costs lately the gap between Notar and T/R aircraft has shrunk to virtually nothing.
Combat damage to the tailcone exposes the aircraft to the horrendous possibility of a new, custom tip jet somewhere, creating a new, custom control where it might yaw or flip the aircraft in strange ways.
With regard to the above quote, "combat damage" to any helicopter's antitorque system is potentially "horrendous". After all, if I remember correctly, in Mogadishu, it was'nt a Notar aircraft that Michael Durant was shot down in when a missle hit the tail ............It was a
BLACKHAWK .
