HH-43 Huskie

[shooter963]

unfortunately the time required each week to untangle the rotor blades was prohibitive.

[bnjones28]

Does any one know what kind of engine they first used during initial testing?

[glennlopez]

omg, how the hell would you do blade tracking on that thing :|

[lst1195]

I looked it up & answered my own question...the only reason this thing was replaced was AGE. The first one flew in 1947 & they stayed in service until the 1970's! It must have been a very good concept!

[SEThatered]

@lst1195

It is stable and simple.

I don't know why it wasn't utilised on military attack helicopters.

[lst1195]

@SEThatered Yeah the K-max looks like a born Gunslinger with a thin Silhouette & everything. Surprised nobody tries that out. 

[SEThatered]

@lst1195

I just read an article about this. It was rejected by the military just because "shafts seemed too complex". What the heck? The conventional tail rotor, NOTAR or counter rotating rotors are classified as more much more complex by many books on helicopters.

I bet there were just some serious money behind in-service helicopters.

[lst1195]

@SEThatered Yeah in the 1960's bell had some congressman by the nads. Howard Hughes was lucky to sell the OH-6A from what I've read.

[SEThatered]

@lst1195

It is just plain stupid.

u.s.a. (bell and sikorski giants in particular) are insisting on inherently unstable and power wasting "one main rotor + tail rotor" design.

The system implemented in Flettner Fl 282 (predecessor of K-MAX)

was much more stable and simple and easy to use than a single rotor already back then in 1922.

us army even ditched teaching pilots on a copy of Fl 282, as it was more easy to fly and didn't prepare pilots for single rotor...

[lst1195]

I guess the KMAX is the desendant of this thing? I remember the Airr Force flew the Huskie...were they not popular? why were they dropped?

[igotbored44]

Some day, the Russians will make an even crazier looking one...

[SEThatered]

@igotbored44

LOL helicopter was first proven as a concept and made by russian immigrant.

Igor Iwanowitsch Sikorski, the inventor of first helicopters was well aware of Anton Flettner's variation, but didn't bother to investigate as that would require new R & D, and he was not doing all that great with his existing helicopter layout.

[Afrocanuk]

It's strange that the tail-rotor configuration being THE most sloppy and inefficient of all is the one the prevailed.

[SEThatered]

@Afrocanuk

Sometimes people overlook better solutions just because they mastered the worst one better.

[superskullmaster]

I was there.

[ClanOfSteel]

sowas von hässlich :-D

[idrobinhood]

Its to bad that there has not been further development of this rotor configuration for usage in unmanned vehicles. This type of rotor configuration is possible of flying high, high recon.

[rs232killer]

I believe Lockheed Martin is pursuing an unmanned version of the KMAX which has this same configuration.

[Grommo]

It's an old an very effective rotor configuration

watch?v=64fgG2CnHn0

[briansmobile1]

Internal Gyro?

[briansmobile1]

How is directional control achieved? Don't the rotors have to be equal in speed to prevent hitting each other?

[Helicopterpilot16]

yes! and its main rotors are controled with the same principal of normal helicopters.

[M4xPower]

@briansmobile1

I bet it has something to do with varying the drag one rotor creates using the servoflaps. The speed of both rotors must be synchronized and mechanically interdependent. This is not something you'd want to leave to chance! :p

[briansmobile1]

@M4xPower Good call ; )

[shooter963]

@briansmobile1 The rotors are connected to each other, sort-of, through a relatively simple transmission so the individual rotor speeds always match each other.

[miketacoma5]

KOLM

[SAGpilot]

very good looking pilot!