H-43 Huskie Questions and What-if Ideas

[dy031101]

Question:

Huskies serving the USN and the USMC are said to have operated off aircraft carriers...... were they equipped with folding rotors?

What-if Idea:

It looks kinda like some models of Kamov ASW helicopters, doesn't it?

Or even maybe put an AEW radar with retractable antenna to make a Ka-31 look-alike......

[Weaver]

It looks even more like the Kamov Ka-26 (or Ka-126/226 with turboshafts); the little utility type with the removable cargo pod!

[dy031101]

It sure does, too.

[apophenia]

Question: ... were they equipped with folding rotors?

No folding rotors, they didn't need them. The twin, two-bladed rotors were simply arranged fore-and-aft (like the twin-blade Bells).

[dy031101]

No folding rotors, they didn't need them.

How big of a footprint would the Huskie, with its rotors arranged fore-and-aft, leave compared to a SH-2 in stowed mode?

[philp]

What was the Gerry Anderson vehicle made from a couple of 32nd Huskies and 48th scale B-58 engine pods?

[apophenia]

How big of a footprint would the Huskie, with its rotors arranged fore-and-aft, leave compared to a SH-2 in stowed mode?

H-43F rotors overlapped the fuselage at either end so 14.32 m rotor diameter and overall length are the same. That's longer than a completely folded Sea Sprite (totaling 11.68 m with both nose and rotor blades folded). For the record, the Huskie's width was 4.58 m and its height was 3.84 m compared with the SH-2's width of 3.73 m and height (folded) of 4.14 m.

Along with the weight and mechanical complexity of folding up an SH-2, you've also got to factor in fuselage length. And the Huskie fuselage was only 7.67 m long.

Not that any of this makes the H-43 a great helicopter. The intermeshing rotor arrangement naturally provides a K-Max pilot with a great view for heli-logging. But what real advantage does it have over the counter-rotating Kamovs you mentioned?

[Weaver]

Not that any of this makes the H-43 a great helicopter. The intermeshing rotor arrangement naturally provides a K-Max pilot with a great view for heli-logging. But what real advantage does it have over the counter-rotating Kamovs you mentioned?

It doesn't provide him with any better view than a normal helicopter. The point of the intermeshing rotor system is power: unlike a conventional helo, engine power isn't being wasted running the tail rotor, so all of it goes into lift. There really isn't much to choose between Kaman and Kamov (even between their names... ): they both use all the engine power for lift by having two counter-rotating main rotors and they both pay a penalty for that in mechanical complexity and rotor mast drag. As far as I can see, minor pros and cons are as follows:

Height: the Kaman system is somewhat lower than the Kamov.

Blades: the Kaman system is pretty much limited to two-bladed rotors, while the Kamov can, in theory, accept any number of blades. This makes the Kamov system more scaleable to bigger, more powerful helos.

Clearance: the Kamov's lower blades are no nearer the ground than a conventional helos, but the tips of the Kaman ones are, because of the way they're angled. In theory, this increases the risk of tip-strikes and personnel accidents.

[dy031101]

I'm just trying to go further down the "look-alike" path...... 

[Weaver]

Useful link:

http://www.pedronews.org/

[PR19_Kit]

Clearance: the Kamov's lower blades are no nearer the ground than a conventional helos, but the tips of the Kaman ones are, because of the way they're angled. In theory, this increases the risk of tip-strikes and personnel accidents.

From memory (of seeing one close up at an Upper Heyford Armed Forces Day) a Huskie carries a warning notice that says '....only approach from the front or rear of the aircraft....' or similar.

[apophenia]

It doesn't provide him with any better view than a normal helicopter...

Gotta disagree Weave. I got that secondhand from a Heliqwest guy but he contrasted the view from his K-Max to that from their B205 for both aerial haresting and bambi buckets.

The rotor mast arrangment means that the cockpit is widest at the top (so, it's no problem to view straight down. And, because the fuselage is so skinny, the pilot can see downwards to port or starboard. No other civilian helicopter pilot can do that.

[Weaver]

It doesn't provide him with any better view than a normal helicopter...

Gotta disagree Weave. I got that secondhand from a Heliqwest guy but he contrasted the view from his K-Max to that from their B205 for both aerial haresting and bambi buckets.

The rotor mast arrangment means that the cockpit is widest at the top (so, it's no problem to view straight down. And, because the fuselage is so skinny, the pilot can see downwards to port or starboard. No other civilian helicopter pilot can do that.

My point is that that's because the K-MAX was designed for good visibility, not because it's got an egg-beater rotor. It could just as easily have had a narrow fuselage with outward sloping windows if it had had a normal rotor, as nearly all gunships demonstrate.

[rickshaw]

Clearance: the Kamov's lower blades are no nearer the ground than a conventional helos, but the tips of the Kaman ones are, because of the way they're angled. In theory, this increases the risk of tip-strikes and personnel accidents.

From memory (of seeing one close up at an Upper Heyford Armed Forces Day) a Huskie carries a warning notice that says '....only approach from the front or rear of the aircraft....' or similar.

Normal helicopters only allow you to approach from the front and sides, where the pilot can essentially see you,  so you haven't really gained or lost anything with the intermeshing rotors.  

[Weaver]

Well there's an increased risk with ground personnel who've been trained to approach a helo from the front or side and are then confronted with a Kaman for the first time. It's alright saying "retrain them", but they might not be under the control of the helicopter operator.