Attack Synchropter up for adoption

[OnionSpider13]

I have little experience in scale modeling, and NO experience in WHIF modeling.  I have one idea that I'd really like to see completed though, so if anybody would like to take a crack at it, please do!

What would a modern attack chopper with intermeshing rotors look like?  The Germans built the Fl 282 in WWII (recon), and the US operated the HH-43 during the 70s as a firefighting aircraft.

Is a synchropter-configuration a dumb idea for an attack helicopter?  What are the tradeoffs between it and a co-axial, tandem, or conventional helicopter?

[jcf]

I have little experience in scale modeling, and NO experience in WHIF modeling.  I have one idea that I'd really like to see completed though, so if anybody would like to take a crack at it, please do!

What would a modern attack chopper with intermeshing rotors look like?  The Germans built the Fl 282 in WWII (recon), and the US operated the HH-43 during the 70s as a firefighting aircraft.

Is a synchropter-configuration a dumb idea for an attack helicopter?  What are the tradeoffs between it and a co-axial, tandem, or conventional helicopter?

Probably like a Kaman K-Max with guns, rockets etc. 


Unmanned K-Max used by the USMC.

[Runway ? ...]

Huskie and K-Max as Huey and Cobra in a whiff world. Hmm.

Mach2 did an HH-43 but the only K-max kits I've seen are desktop models.



Raid a Cobra kit for parts and think of an operator.

[major]

Kaman K-Max in 1/72...
and by all accounts, a lovely kit to put together, but, a tad dear for my wallet!

http://www.armahobby.com/k-max-unamnned-manned-helicopter.html

And a very nice card model of the thing, 1/41 scale, more in my price range!

http://murphs-models.webs.com/helicopters    (second row down)

[Runway ? ...]

Nice find  (£37.63) is only a weeks food I don't have any more 

Drift:
This thread has sent me off on a tangent which says my two MI-10s (one and a complete mess) could be combined, one airframe four engines, intermeshed rotors with the long legs ,hopefully, keeping the fan from the other stuff giving about 100,000 lbs of lifting goodness.
Now which weapons...

[kerick]

Search Kaman K max and there are lots of photos. The wikipedia article mentioned that the synchropter design is more naturally stable in a hover which makes it a better choice for lifting. Medium lift being the civilian application for the K max. Some in flight photos look like its pretty maneuverable. In the classic US attack copter theory the copter hovers behind terrain to mask itself then pops up to take a shot and then move to a new spot. So this would be suitable for a K max type. If its easy to hover then that would reduce pilot workload and that's always a good thing. The K max is clearly a one seat machine so a bigger ac would be needed for two seats or scale o rama a 1/48th kit to 1/72nd.
This is a very interesting idea and I'm looking forward to watching the progress of anyone who takes this on.

[jcf]

The old Hawk/Testors etc., 1/32 HH-43 is still around so one could kitbash it with a 1/35 Cobra.

Yeah, yeah I know PSR, PSR, PSR. So it goes. 

The Kmax is HH-43 components with a minimized airframe for the cargo role*, but nothing sez it couldn't have a tandem two-seat arrangement
for the gunship role ... or perhaps combine the manned and UAV roles and keep the single seat for the gunner but have it remotely piloted. 
With the RAF this would obviously be a Sergeant Gunner and an Officer Pilot (Remote) , tradition ya know Old Boy. 

* Contrary to most peoples conceptions, the critical aspect for increasing load on a slung load helicopter is not weight, it's area under the rotor disc.
I worked on S-61 L/N shortening projects for the Canadian heli-log market, and taking out that four foot fuselage extension (the airliners were
longer than the military versions) to reduce the airframe length only saved about 110 lbs of structure weight, but it increased lift ability by about 1000lbs.

[OnionSpider13]

I did think about the K-MAX a couple times, but it just doesn't look very aggressive.  And why does it look so top-heavy?  And can somebody explain the sideways "T" structure halfway down the tail?

Would it be more appropriate to add guns and rockets to a pre-existing Kaman?  What about reconfiguring an AH-64, Ka-50, Eurocopter, etc.?  I imagine it would have a shorter tail section.  That seems to be the trend with the HH-43 and Ka-31, neither of which have tail rotors.

[jcf]

I did think about the K-MAX a couple times, but it just doesn't look very aggressive.  And why does it look so top-heavy?  And can somebody explain the sideways "T" structure halfway down the tail?

Would it be more appropriate to add guns and rockets to a pre-existing Kaman?  What about reconfiguring an AH-64, Ka-50, Eurocopter, etc.?  I imagine it would have a shorter tail section.  That seems to be the trend with the HH-43 and Ka-31, neither of which have tail rotors.

Look up 'yaw' and your questions will be answered.

[Dizzyfugu]

The seling point of synch and coaxial rotor design (Kamov) is their stability, esp. when hovering. That made and makes the concept very attractive for naval and rescue duties, as well as for flying crane operations. On the negative side, there's much more drag, and the system is complex. For the aforementioned duties this is not vital, but IMHO not a good asset for a combat helicopter - even though I could imagine a K-MAX with a AH-1 style cockpit section. Would still look odd, though.

[OnionSpider13]

I understand what yaw is, but wouldn't that be corrected by the rudder?  There don't appear to be any flight control surfaces on that...doodad.

[OnionSpider13]

Ok so synch are good for naval, rescue, and flying crane ops.  What about military transport?

[jcf]

I understand what yaw is, but wouldn't that be corrected by the rudder?  There don't appear to be any flight control surfaces on that...doodad.

Yaw is best resisted by appropriately place side-area, rather than the rudder or other active control surface, which is why seaplane conversions
of land-based aircraft add vertical area, increased fin size, enlarged rudders etc. The added area doesn't have to be a control surface. In the case
of the K-Max, which is a stripped down HH-43, they not only lost the bulky fuselage, they also lost the big-donkey multi-fin tail struture. Thus the
T-structures to compensate for lost side area. It's s'all about the yaw y'all. 

The HH-43 was used for transport as well as rescue.

[Captain Canada]

Very cool idea !

[PR19_Kit]

With the RAF this would obviously be a Sergeant Gunner and an Officer Pilot (Remote) , tradition ya know Old Boy.  

I suspect that such an aircraft in the UK would fly under the Army Air Corps' auspices rather than the RAF's, viz the current Apaches. The AAC have quite a number of all-NCO crews.

Did the HH-34 ever carry weapons? I've never seen one do so, but then all the ones based here were tasked for airfield crash response and usually carried a big fire retardant tank underneath.