Helicopter

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 12 Aug 2003 17:27

gabriel pagliarani wrote:Christophe, you are talking about "Pogo" project, as I have understood. It was a failure.. another X-project. Astronauts were rescued by powerful Sikorsky "fleet Angels".
As i understand Christopher was talking about Kaman Huskie,

Image

which,

- was used by Navy, Air Force and Marines
- was by no means a failure, but was very good machine
- used similar intermeshing rotors as German WW2 era Flettner Kolibri, so no need to pay royalties to anyone, because Germans weren't at time in position to demand anything :P

Huskie was not up to the job of lifting spacecrafts from sea, it was not designed for heavy lift tasks, but as light rescue/observation helicopter. For sure they were around in early years of US manned space program, in case the spacecraft would had not been so easy to find...

picture: http://flyingleatherneck.netfirms.com

gabriel pagliarani wrote:simply Bell and Sikorsky shared the market.

First there was Huskie and after it came Kaman Seasprite...

Image

picture: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/briangr/


Regards, Mark V

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7047
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 12 Aug 2003 18:00

Thanks markV, That Huskie is the helicopter I was thinking of.

As to recovering capsules I know it could not do that but it seems like one was present during the rescue of one astronaut who's Mercury capsule sunk, Sheppard or Glenn? He may been been bought back to the carrier on a bigger Helo , but I think a Huskie was there first.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 13 Aug 2003 17:48, edited 1 time in total.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 13 Aug 2003 15:02

Mark V: where is counter rotating rotor? Kaman has an usual antispin rotor on the tail. Nothing to share with Flettners double anti spinning coaxial rotor.Hughes, Kaman and many others payed royalties to Bell. Never heard about anti trust Laws?... :idea: Mark V I begin to think you suffer a real disturb of deep personality: your continuos attempt in querelling without any true arguing is pathologic.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 13 Aug 2003 15:24

Gabriel,

Take a closer look of Huskie:

http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/foto/kaman_huskie.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/peterlewisdes ... /kaman.jpg
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/hh43.jpg
http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/ka ... Huskie.jpg

Where is the tail rotor ?? I can't see it :D Also notice the Flettner type intermeshing rotors...

Seasprite used conventional tail rotor, but no-one has claimed that it didn't.

Gabriel, when you last visited an optician ?? No offence, but i think it is time. :wink:


Regards, Mark V


BTW. The Flettner system is hardly co-axial.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 13 Aug 2003 15:50

Seriously Gabriel,

I might understand the reason to your persistant claim that everybody payed licence fees to Bell for every helicopter they made.

Earlier you mentioned Agusta. That might be the explanation. You are an Italian and maybe have heard that this company has licenced technology from Bell - which is true - as most of helicopters manufactured by Agusta have been just licence-produced Bell helicopters !! They have now their own types also and Agusta-Bells have evolved somewhat on their own course over the decades.

But that does not mean that other helicopter manufacturers in this world used same method. There was plenty of indigenous designs from many pioneer-manufacturers that had little or nothing to do with Bell. Maybe there was some patents for some technical aspect of normal main+spabilizing rotor design that was held by Bell, but it doesn't change the fact that Flettner, Focke-Wulf, Focke-Achgelis, Sikorsky, Kaman, Kamov, Mil, Yakovlev, Westland, Piasecki and others that i forgot to mention were all as valuable pioneers as Bell on this area of aviation...

Mark V

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7047
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 13 Aug 2003 17:57

I think the arguement here is a single contra-rotating hub versus versus two hubs having contra-rotating blades.

Both counter the torque induced by the spin of having a rotor hub that spins in one direction , thus precluding the use of a tail rotor.

I really don't know if the two are so different as to not be covered in the license and /or patent issues for these differences in "lay-out?"

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 14 Aug 2003 14:40

Exactly Cristophe, and Mark V is an off-topic specialist. The arguing was about twin rotor-double-shafted-coaxial (which means an empty shaft rotating clock-wise f.e in which another shaft is rotating anti-clock-wise. If you look at Flettner Kolibri (moke-up demo assembly not prototypal) you can watch a couple of blades over the other couple: it means the upper couple is linked to the inner shaft which rotates in a direction. Obviously the lower couple must be linked to the outer hollow shaft: this couple MUST rotate in opposite direction respect with upper couple in order to balance torque. Finally watching the rudder of the Kolibri try to find an anti-spin rotor...check. After checking you must agree with me that there is no torque controlling device on the tail. Therefore the only way to limit torque is through power controlling the rotations of both couples of blades!But any shaft must be linked to an inclination-control device (hidraulycal, electrical) applied to any blade.So there are 2 collective gears instead 1only: if the German pilot of the Kolibrì had 3 hands he could move the cloche + 2 collective gears! :lol: So because I am sure that in Nazi Germany every baby born with 3 hands had to be killed before being a Kolibrì pilot, simply that project was stopped till electronics gave "the 3rd hand" to W. Germany pilots during '70s. It was a very expensive development (2 shafts+2power gears+2collective gears) but it was a safe design: no free-torque when the antispin is broken or damaged. A fine and safe aero-ambulance! :idea: ...and an all-german design.

PS
About Agusta. Yes there were fine alternatives to Bell in Italy. Soviet airframes for example like happened in Finland :roll: eh..eh.. an optician for me but a psychiatrist for you.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 14 Aug 2003 15:47

Gabriel,

I post just few pics more. I know, i know, pic of Kolibri is just minuature, but there you can best see what we were talking about. But let me first quote you couple of times:
gabriel pagliarani wrote:LOLs and oddities. Bell Co. built the 1st helicopter: it was used in Korea not in WW2. Germans produced autogyros or gyrocopters and these are STOLs not VTOLs.
gabriel pagliarani wrote:where is counter rotating rotor? Kaman has an usual antispin rotor on the tail. Nothing to share with Flettners double anti spinning coaxial rotor.
gabriel pagliarani wrote:If you look at Flettner Kolibri (moke-up demo assembly not prototypal) you can watch a couple of blades over the other couple: it means the upper couple is linked to the inner shaft which rotates in a direction. Obviously the lower couple must be linked to the outer hollow shaft: this couple MUST rotate in opposite direction respect with upper couple in order to balance torque. Finally watching the rudder of the Kolibri try to find an anti-spin rotor...check. After checking you must agree with me that there is no torque controlling device on the tail.
(emphasize on quote is mine)


...and then the picture of Flettner Kolibri:

Image


...and Kaman Huskie:

Image

So,

- first you claimed that Bell build the first helicopter (BTW. Notice - Kolibri wasn't the first either)
- then you claimed that Kaman Huskie has conventional anti-torque tail rotor, and share nothing with Flettner Kolibris co-axial rotor system (the helicopter model which very existance you just few days earlier denied)
- and now you tell that i have to agree you that there wasn't anti-torque tail rotor on Kolibri and Huskie ?? No-one here have claimed that they had - except you (on Huskie) !!
- i am sure that tomorrow you post that everybody must agree you on that Kolibri doesn't have co-axial rotors...

Don't get me wrong Gabriel, you have a wealth of knowlewdge on many areas, but a little bit more of consistency and honesty wouldn't do you harm. I hope that i wasn't too plainspoken. This is small matter after all...

Mark V

pictures: http://m2reviews.cnsi.net and http://1000aircraftphotos.com

edited: added one more photo of Huskie and changed the Kolibri picture, "¤%?"##¤ Tripod !!

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4576
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 17 Jul 2004 20:00

Caldric wrote: I do not find it to strange, I mean this is the age when men flew airplanes into barns, I do not find it strange someone wears a hat while flying a helicopter.
Flying is sport of the gentlemen. Hat fits the pic perfectly. I'd say Sikorsky has more advanced chopper than Focke Achgelis FA-61.

User avatar
Eightball
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 22:37
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Eightball » 18 Jul 2004 15:37

I thought the Kolibri was used in the Mediterranian sea by the Germans for uboat hunting.

Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 513
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re:

Post by Cantankerous » 23 Feb 2021 02:13

Eightball wrote:
18 Jul 2004 15:37
I thought the Kolibri was used in the Mediterranian sea by the Germans for uboat hunting.
Info about the use of the Fl 282 Kolibri in the Mediterranean Sea is found at this link:
https://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_en ... olibri.php

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3090
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Helicopter

Post by Sheldrake » 23 Feb 2021 03:47

Helicopters could have been used on D Day by the Royal Artillery. Brigadier General H J "Hatchet- Jack" Parham was the senior artillery officer on the staff of the Second British Army and responsible for the D Day fire plan. He was an autogyro pilot and keen supporter of the concept of Air OPs. He was worried about the lack of aerial observation on D Day. In March 1944 Sikorsky offered a test flight in his prototype helicopter to Montgomery who declined - but Parham accepted.

Parham then conducted a campaign to obtain the prototypes for use on D Day operating from platforms on LCTs. The RAF conducted a robust defence on the basis that even for D Day he was not going to be allowed to use prototypes of any aircraft.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”