Simviation Forums

Recently, I was down in Warner Robins, GA. at the air museum down there.

I took this picture of a helicopter, but forgot what the plaque describing the aircraft said, and forgot to take a pic of it.





It's obviously a double rotor, but I don't think I've ever seen this specific one.

I have no idea what the name of this Heli is.

So, any ideas?

Looks like a Kaman Huskie to me.

How exactly does that twin rotor work? It looks to me like the rotors would either hit each other, or hit the other rotor's support.

EDIT- On a second look, it looks like the rotors may be angled, but it's tough to tell.

The rotors are at a slight angle.

How exactly does that twin rotor work? It looks to me like the rotors would either hit each other, or hit the other rotor's support.

EDIT- On a second look, it looks like the rotors may be angled, but it's tough to tell.

download the heli below...and figure is out your self....thats what i did

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/syb2. ... 0_Kmax.zip

There had to be a better way to place the two rotors. It seems that if you lost one engine, you can say goodbye to the other one as well.

There had to be a better way to place the two rotors. It seems that if you lost one engine, you can say goodbye to the other one as well.

I think if you lost one engine, the blades hitting is probably the last thing on your mind. (since I would think from the size that it wouldn't be capable of flying on one blade.

True, but having both blades intact opens up the possibility of autorotation, increasing the chances of survival greatly. It's kind of hard to autorotate when you're misssing both main rotors.

Here is an interesting site about the Huskie  

About

Deployment history

Matt

There had to be a better way to place the two rotors. It seems that if you lost one engine, you can say goodbye to the other one as well.

I think if you lost one engine, the blades hitting is probably the last thing on your mind. (since I would think from the size that it wouldn't be capable of flying on one blade.

With the exception of NOTAR helicopters, any conventional helicopter is incapable of flying on one rotor. That's why they have two rotors, to counterbalance the torque.

Yes, I know they need the second rotor to counter the torque. However, torque is not a consideration when you are autorotating, which would be impossible to do in this aircraft unless the rotors are linked so that the blades cannot hit. If the blades were not linked in a way that they cannot hit each other, the pilot would not have time to cut throttle on the remaining engine should one of the engines fail before the blades hit. If you  lose an engine in a helicopter, and can't autorotate, you are dead.

[quote]Yes, I know they need the second rotor to counter the torque. However, torque is not a consideration when you are autorotating, which would be impossible to do in this aircraft unless the rotors are linked so that the blades cannot hit. If the blades were not linked in a way that they cannot hit each other, the pilot would not have time to cut throttle on the remaining engine should one of the engines fail before the blades hit. If you

This is no different than a Chinook.  The two rotors have an interconnect to keep them synched.  Engine failure doesn't mean the rotors hit.

no but if one sprag clutch didnt engage it would mess up the timing.

no but if one sprag clutch didnt engage it would mess up the timing.

There is only one clutch on these... otherwise it would be suicide