Electric tail rotor; an alternative?
 

Chopjock, the RAF SAR Wessex which crashed into the lake in Wales with cadet passengers on board had a tail rotor dis-connectable coupling failure.
First of all you complained that a tail rotor drive system is too unreliable but now you want to make it more complicated and therefore by definition less reliable...what sort of logic is that?

Everybody relax, the above statement should make it perfectly clear that he's just trolling you.

There is a cure for Trolls.

Friends don't let friends troll.

Seems to me that an electric tail rotor is a rather good idea.

Chopjock should show us his design for the Fail Safe Helicopter....one that cannot have any kind of failure.....then explain how to sell them, maintain them, and operate them as he seems to have all the answers.

Only until someone forgets to switch it on, or the motor, the switch or the wiring fails...

Same is true of engines, fuel, hydraulics, gearboxes etc. hence the need for safety critical design.

You could have it on by default with the ability to switch it off if you want, like when in the cruise or during an un commanded full pedal emergency...

Think a switch is a bit simple, but there would be a number of means of control. Of course the main reason to move to electric is environmental, but it does offer other potential advantages.

An electric tail rotor could be switched off in the cruise and yaw control achieved by a simple aeroplane style rudder. It would save energy, reduce noise and help significantly with component life. Overall, I think this could be a winner

I think so too, powered by a generator run off the main engine(s).

Actually, why not the main rotor too? They do it in ships so why not aircraft?

Would take a lot of development though...... Elon Musk?

Almost instantaneous torque.... giro stabilised?

Perhaps start a new thread to discuss?

But you would need it on for takeoff and landing, which is where your argument began. Even if you have lost sight of that, I haven't.

Yes of course. I did say simply switch it off when not needed... (Obviously switch it back on again when required). A bit like you do with the gear.

Or, you could have a less complicated design turned by a simple and very reliable mechanical driveshaft and have an aerodynamic tailfin which allows the pitch of the blades to be reduced to near neutral in cruise flight.

But wait, someone already thought of that...

Or an even simpler design with direct drive electric motors and no gearboxes at all?

An electric motor would need to supply a lot of horsepower and it might be just as heavy as a gearbox. The aircraft would also need at least one large generator to supply power to it. Stopping a rotor blade in flight comes with its own set of aerodynamic problems.
But anything is possible, all engineering design is a compromise and let's not forget that most things in engineering have been tried already. There's nothing much simpler than a driveshaft turning a gearbox.

A single turbine generator with battery backup to provide "instantaneous" torque and sufficient reserve to get safely on the ground in the event of generator failure? Would probably be good to have a sprag clutch too.