The Mad Dawg's are a hoot aren't they!

CT,

It's already been done and more research is being done on similar systems.

Two engines, two blades up top and on the tail, chaff and flare, retractable gun pods on sponsons. Retractable undercarriage, colour black on top white underneath.

If I could design my own rotor-craft, it might look like this:

http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/...ket/AVX509.jpg

Actually, I've always thought you could turn the tail rotor of any run-of-the-mill helicopter into a pusher-prop that can reverse pitch its blades on one side during the hover to counteract the torque. That is, it can induce a turning moment around the tail rotor gearbox which can be balanced with cyclic.

The mechanical advantage (leverage) of such a system is minimal, so the stresses in the blade roots and shaft would be huge.

PDR

Years ago I believe Sikorsky had a pivoting tail rotor which swiveled to provide thrust in forward flight, using the vertical tail for anti torque at high speed. The experiment must not have warranted pursuing the technology, as the concept has disappeared. I believe there were a lot of vibe issues. If I was to design my own rotorcraft it would look a lot like the X2.

I would like to see this all dolled up into a nice Corporate style paint scheme and interior.



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...f1b0bd4e77.jpg

A highly developed Gazelle... :)



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...BubbleShip.jpg

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rc...87461276610225

Cattletruck: Here you are:

http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/imag...66%20X%205.jpg

I did not know the SK Engineering Department used mind altering substances to that degree!:uhoh:

Right, SAS! Someone cut off their supply as you'll notice we did not pursue this approach.

Noticed also that so far, no poster has mentioned a desire for a rotor that the pilot stops in flight, after which it behaves like a four bladed X-Wing which utilizes boundary layer control ( the RSRA/X-Wing design ). That was going to demand an Act of Faith on the part of the test pilot who pushed the ROTOR STOP button the first time up at speed.

( Thanks to Senior Pilot for putting up the pics in place of the link )

Awesome pics folks, first time I've seen them, thanks.

A pusher prop would also negate the need for using more forward cyclic at full speed and keep the airframe flatter with the airflow.

Seems like autorotations could get interesting with such a configuration especially the end bit, however I guess if you had enough height you could use the windmilling effect of the pusher prop to drive the MR-RPM back up again if it got too low.

"You could use the windmilling effect of the pusher prop to drive the MR-RPM backup again.."

Not sure about that. You may recall the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne, which had both a tail rotor AND a pusher prop. Had a single GE T-64 engine. If I recall, there was an auto feather device for the pusher prop in the event of an engine failure. Perhaps someone from Lockheed can comment.

AH-56 Pusher
 

Catlletruck, I found this AH-56 Flight Test Evaluation by the US Army Engr Flight Activity troops:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/771914.pdf

Page 28 has some info re engine failure characteristics. For everyone else, it provides a glimpse into the AH-56 flying qualities and flight envelope limitations. This same group did an evaluation of the S-67 a few years later. The 67 had two engines.

JohnDixson

Already been tried as such

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/11/t...lmost-a-thing/

In films there was the one in The 6th Day that converted to a normal wing config in flight.

http://stargazer2006.online.fr/vario...ispercraft.htm

NL, I noticed as to the second link:

" The movie's flying sequences were all done using computer graphics. " Indeed!

As to the first link, I must admit to never hearing mention of it, at least from 1966 to 2005, but perhaps Nick Lappos has. The possibility ( probability?? ) of a dynamics issue or two ( pun intended ) automatically come to mind.

Anyone mentioned the ejection seat? The US during Vietnam were attempting to develop a bang seat that would deeply rotors and be then flown by the ejectee away from te crash site.

Like this?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jLhZN7fTwQQ

Dixson....you SOB!

You owe me a new Keyboard!

I watched that video and found early parts of of the narrative a bit funny.....but when the Guy said.....for purposes of this Test the Seats were occupied by Dummies....I formed a Mental Image of what it would look like if the Rotor Separation and Ejection system was ever tested in flight.....Well....I just wasted some very good Single Malt Whisky cleaning the iMac Screen and doing a deep soak of what I hope is liquid proof Keyboard. Dang...but that stuff burns coming out the nostrils!:ok:

Somehow "Dummies" just seemed so right somehow!

Perhaps I really was not cut out to be a Sikorsky Test Pilot!