The tail rotor or fenestron on a conventional helicopter counter acts the torque of the main rotor.
Without it the helicopter will likely spin uncontrollably and crash - not invariably, but it is a highly dangerous situation and there are numerous videos on the 'net of spectacular crashes when a tail rotor hits a tree or similar, or the tail rotor drive fails.
This is NOT THE CASE when the helicopter has contra rotating main rotors, because those 2 rotors cancel each other’s torque - hence Ka-50 doesn’t need a tail rotor, and the vertical stabilizer is for yaw control at fast forward speeds, and the horizontal stabilizer has elevators likely for similar.
Cyclic commands CAN be used for these of course, but at high speeds the rotor is already tilted to generate forward thrust, so it is likely more aerodynamically efficient top use conventional aircraft control surfaces when there is significant forward speed. They will also add to general stability at such speeds.
If you dont have a vertical stab you cant produce yaw torque, meaning you just spin. No vertical stab = no yaw stability if your tail rotor is dead.
Logging hours, given you dont know what a part 107 is I’m guessing you are not typed in the US. Part 107 is the rating for commercial UAS pilots in the US.
If it exists, it is still easily safe to say there is a substantial amount of aircraft there.
The crashed helo or the DCS clip? Thats a 52, said issue is present on both airframes. The latter is true, although, the question would be is how much changed inside the tail, but the empanage itself is still the same.
Are you sure about that?
Yes, thank you for quoting something that is already well established a while ago.
And how do you counter a loss of anti-torque on a helo, you increase forward velocity and lower collective because your vertical stabilizer will counter the effect, as long as you have enough forward velocity the loss of anti-torque is negligible. If you are in a hover have fun spinning, dont put in positive or negative pitch or you get to have fun rocking to your death, dump the collective and bank into the spin.
You seem to be inferring that I believe that the 50/52 would spin out like a hovering, normal helicopter. This is not the case, as I have re-iterated multiple times now, neither helicopter would suffer a catastrophic loss of control, however, as of now, they will even gain performance without their empanage present.
As stated elsewhere in the thread, the only surface present on the 50/52 that has a control surface is the vertical stabilizer, like a normal helo, even contra-rotating helos require a vertical stab to ensure the helo can maintain stable flight, even the image posted prior with the 52 with a damaged vertical stab starts to list while gently flying in the original video after completing a turn, much less a J turn like the KA-52 in the reddit post earlier.
That is glossing over what is a massively dangerous situation - sure you CAN auto-rotate if you have forward speed, and you are quick enough… but it is not a given, and it is not taught because even attempting it is too dangerous.
Or do you set yourself up as more of an authority than the NTSB??
I didn’t say you believed that at all - the contra-rotating rotors mean it has full control authority even without an empennage, because the empennage exerts minimal forces, especially in slower flight.
As I said - they perform this function when there is sufficient airspeed for them to do so - at low airspeeds they have no such effect.
If the Ka-50 in the video was yawing due lack of the vertical stabilizer (which has NOT been established!), then that would cease if it slowed down to a speed where that was not an issue.
Once again - you provide not actual evidence to support your claim.
General pain, the primary draw of dosh for the Part 107 is the insurance I have to get along with it.
If I had started on this a while ago it would be way less pain due to the price of jet A being way less in the US a few years ago, so the entire event is taking way WAY longer than it really should.
“There is a literal video of Ka-52 flying without with its entire tail intact, only having the vertical stab bent, in Ukraine. It still has all of its avionics intact, it still has its horizontal stabilizers, and it didn’t lose 40% of its mass (which would shift the CoG so severely that it would likely crash straight into the ground). This is an explicit example russian bias.”
Cool, you dont need to auto-rotate with forward velocity, I have a feeling that you dont really know anything of what you are trying to explain given you keep citing the NTSB as some authority of aircraft operation when the FAA exists.
Last I checked the NTSB does not write the book on how to operate rotary wing aircraft, or any aircraft in the US for that matter, you’d have to ask the FAA for that.
Go and get yourself a copy of FAR-AIM and get back to me after you have finished it so you actually have a baseline in basic aircraft operations in modern airspace.
Cool, that is what your statement insinuated, and no, no rotor has full control authority over a rotary wing aircraft, contra-rotating or otherwise, both static and mobile control surfaces on a rotary wing aircraft work in tandem with the anti-torque and main rotor to produce control. Yes said systems have less effect at low speed, that does still however not discount the fact that they are needed.
Cool, now explain to me how a KA-52 can pull a high speed J turn without it with no issue like in the video I posted a while ago.
KA-52, no 50s have been used in the unnamed nation. Quite funny though that you just willingly brush off video proof of slip when providing nothing more than the standard “contra-rotating blades allow helis to do functionally anything” argument, and no stop trying to shift the goalposts, we aren’t talking about a hover or a standstill like you are trying to move the argument to, its normal in game combat speed and the posted video, both of which are high speed.
I have posted multiple examples and thoroughly explained how aircraft actually function. Your response as well as foxo’s have been the same aforementioned contra-rotating rotor cope. The burden of proof are on you and him, of which neither of you have provided anything.
Confined Shkval, large and lesser in mobility, lacking FAF munitions, thermals, radar, or the ability to track a target while traveling adjacent to an enemy.
These are all outdone by the A129, EC-665 UHT, and especially the AH Mk.1.
Exactly, unless some munitions are added to it that it doesn’t currently have. Which could we see an upgrade of the current Black Shark to the BSIII with three pylons per “wing”?
If;
Yes - Other helicopters stand no chance
No - Other helicopters match the range of the Ka-50 and have an edge with sensor capability and performance.
