The simplicity to fly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simplicity to fly
Hi, Is there anyone here that has flown a coaxial and a single?
So, really, is there a big difference between them? is the coaxial much easier to fly because of the lack of tail rotor and lack of gyroscopic problems, less cross couplings etc..
OR!! are the differences only noticed by used pilots and to newbies coaxials and singels the same pain to learn on?
I am not talking about the dangers and engine failure situation but an ordinary hover and low-medium speed flight
Regards
Levi
So, really, is there a big difference between them? is the coaxial much easier to fly because of the lack of tail rotor and lack of gyroscopic problems, less cross couplings etc..
OR!! are the differences only noticed by used pilots and to newbies coaxials and singels the same pain to learn on?
I am not talking about the dangers and engine failure situation but an ordinary hover and low-medium speed flight
Regards
Levi
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sort of thing has always worried me, I mean we , well me anyway, really am mad enough trying to figure out and watch that blessed rotor blade go past when its only hooked onto above my head.
Another one out me backside would really confuse me, and those poor buggers that have two side by side, mate they would have to go real crazy real quick I reckon keepin' an eye on them.
But then again there's one bloke on here that flies one with the second one out the backside, he seems normal, drinks etc swears every now and then, gives women heaps of cheek.
Another one out me backside would really confuse me, and those poor buggers that have two side by side, mate they would have to go real crazy real quick I reckon keepin' an eye on them.
But then again there's one bloke on here that flies one with the second one out the backside, he seems normal, drinks etc swears every now and then, gives women heaps of cheek.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leviterande,
The following is from the personal experience of others.
It compares the twin-rotor interleaving [Kaman Huskie] (not the twin-rotor coaxial) to the single main+tail rotor. It may, or may not, be relevant to your question.
"Compared to existing tail rotor designs, they made efficient use of engine power and were easy to fly: indeed, in 1948, a Connecticut housewife flew the K-125 solo after receiving just 25 minutes of dual instruction (for a story in Life Magazine)."
From; 'Vertical' magazine
"It was exceptionally steady and stable in flight, which made pilot training a breeze. In fact, this is why the Navy ordered them in the first place, as trainers - only to decide later that they were "too easy to fly" as a preparatory stage in training for conventional helicopters."
From; DESIGN CLASSROOM - COLLECTED WORKS - POPULAR ROTORCRAFT ASSN 1974
Dave
The following is from the personal experience of others.
It compares the twin-rotor interleaving [Kaman Huskie] (not the twin-rotor coaxial) to the single main+tail rotor. It may, or may not, be relevant to your question.
"Compared to existing tail rotor designs, they made efficient use of engine power and were easy to fly: indeed, in 1948, a Connecticut housewife flew the K-125 solo after receiving just 25 minutes of dual instruction (for a story in Life Magazine)."
From; 'Vertical' magazine
"It was exceptionally steady and stable in flight, which made pilot training a breeze. In fact, this is why the Navy ordered them in the first place, as trainers - only to decide later that they were "too easy to fly" as a preparatory stage in training for conventional helicopters."
From; DESIGN CLASSROOM - COLLECTED WORKS - POPULAR ROTORCRAFT ASSN 1974
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 12th Jun 2011 at 20:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
. 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
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Levi,
Yes, 'the hunt' offers a lot of fun 
and a lot of frustration. 
Dave
let me say that I in my helicopter theory journey have seen accepted and denied countless designs.
and a lot of frustration. Dave
