red oct 2 Posted July 1, 2002 in order to stabalize the chopper, both main rotors would have to spin in a opposite direction of one another right? so how does it work? it looks so compicated that it would be prone to crash a lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted July 1, 2002 Actually it makes for a very stable platform. Best of all it does away with the tail rotor which is very exposed, including the drive shaft etc that runs along the tail. The KA-50/52 is one of the safest and durable choppers around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted July 1, 2002 well i knew about that, my question is how does it work? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
habdoel 0 Posted July 1, 2002 thats wath the nato spotters asked many many times... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stag 0 Posted July 1, 2002 Inner and outer shafts geared to counter rotate, with the control mechanism for the upper rotors all carried within the outer shaft, at a guess. That's some seriously cool engineering. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kasatka 0 Posted July 1, 2002 FAS.ORG ...The KA-50 features unique maneuvrability and operating characteristics due to the contra-rotating co-axial rotors. The coaxial counter-rotating rotor system negates the need for a tail rotor and its drive system. Because of this, this aircraft is unaffected by wind strength and direction, has an unlimited hovering turn rate, and gives a smaller profile and acoustic signature, while allowing a 10-15% greater power margin. The HOKUM is fully aerobatic. It can perform loops, roll, and “the funnelâ€, where the aircraft will maintain a concentrated point of fire while flying circles of varying altitude, elevation, and airspeed around the target... ARMY-TECHNOLOGY ...The coaxial rotor design provides a hovering ceiling of 4,000 m and vertical rate of climb of 10 m/sec at an altitude of 2,500 m. The rotor blades are made from polymer materials. The coaxial-rotor configuration results in moments of inertia values relative to vertical and lateral axes being between 1.5 to 2 times less than the values found in single rotor helicopters with tailrotors. Absence of the tail rotor enables the helicopter to perform flat turns within the entire flight speed range. A maximum vertical g-load of 3.5 combined with low moments of inertia give the Ka-50 a high level of agility. Extensive all-round armour installed in the cockpit protects the pilot against 12.7 mm armour piercing bullets and 23 mm projectile fragments. The rotor blades are rated to withstand several hits of ground-based automatic weapons. The Ka-50 is the world's first operational helicopter with a rescue ejection system, which allows pilot to escape at all altitudes and speeds. The K-37-800 Rocket Assisted Ejection System is manufactured by the Zvezda Research and Production Enterprise Joint Stock Company in the Moscow Region... I hope it x can help..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SKULLS_Viper 0 Posted July 1, 2002 It works the same way as a CH-47 Chinook.Hope that answers your question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kasatka 0 Posted July 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 30 2002,19:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It works the same way as a CH-47 Chinook.Hope that answers your question. <span id='postcolor'> I'm sorry but this is not true.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kasatka 0 Posted July 1, 2002 I forgot to say why.. The CH-47 is a twin-engine, tandem rotor helicopter, and the Kamov Ka-50 is a coaxial rotor helicopter... but in the function, there are somethings that looks like... when the helicopter turns.. and about the two rotors turn to diferent sides.. bot the coaxial and the tandem concept are very diferent... (Sorry about the english) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Kane 0 Posted July 1, 2002 It works just like the Husky... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted July 1, 2002 Its looks like the big axle would be a weak spot for it if it were to get hit and pictures Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted July 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ July 01 2002,21:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its looks like the big axle would be a weak spot for it if it were to get hit  and pictures <span id='postcolor'> bbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh not more than the tail or the rotor of a normal helicopter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stag 0 Posted July 1, 2002 You hit ANY chopper in the Jesus nut, it will go DOWN! You hit any main/tail rotor chopper in the tail, it wil go down. For the Hokum, transfer "big vulnerable point" from tail to main rotor, which is more complicated, but I don't think really any bigger than a Huey's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted July 1, 2002 Don`t the new types of helicopter have thrusters instead of a tail rotot now ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted July 1, 2002 bbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh not thruster , NOTAR system ...... as vulnerable as any other tail rotor against heavy caliber Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted July 1, 2002 In combat, I would feel safer in a Hokum more than I would in any other combat helo with a conventional tail rotor. What I wouldnt feel comfortable with is the quality control in the plant it was made in. Even if it is Cold War vintage, I cant imagine the upkeep of the helo and its associated weapons systems have been stellar. Now... Get another country (US/UK/France/Germany) building these things under contract and WHOA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
acidcrash 0 Posted July 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Get another country (US/UK/France/Germany) building these things under contract and WHOA. <span id='postcolor'> oooh $10 billion at the least...and then get cancled Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted July 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Acidcrash @ July 01 2002,23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oooh $10 billion at the least...and then get cancled<span id='postcolor'> Nah, the design and engineering work is already done, so they wouldnt cost that much And it's hard to canel a finished product Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted July 1, 2002 At the Pentagon, if a new vehicles likeness gets put on a coffe cup, generally it is bullet proof. that one exception would be the cancelled Crusader artillery system Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted July 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ July 01 2002,22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh not thruster , NOTAR system ...... as vulnerable as any other tail rotor against heavy caliber<span id='postcolor'> yes and wtf does that stand for ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted July 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ July 02 2002,01:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ July 01 2002,22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh not thruster , NOTAR system ...... as vulnerable as any other tail rotor against heavy caliber<span id='postcolor'> yes and wtf does that stand for ?<span id='postcolor'> NOTAR? NO TAil Rotor. Here is a good explanation complete with pictured, of how it works. As to whether it is more or less susceptible to heavy arms fire, I couldnt seem to find any data on. I'd suspect that with proper armouring of the slots in the boom, it would be signiciantly better though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SKULLS_Viper 0 Posted July 2, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kasatka @ July 01 2002,18:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 30 2002,191)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It works the same way as a CH-47 Chinook.Hope that answers your question. <span id='postcolor'> I'm sorry but this is not true.... Â <span id='postcolor'> I was just saying, that both, the hokum and the chinook, both have two sets of blades, and no tail, and the blades both spin clockwise, and counter clockwise.Its the blades im talking about, not the helicopters them selfs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
