Flying the Shark vs Flyign the Huey - First Impressions

[GGTharos]

Kamov presented the Ka-50 to the Russian Air Force (or army aviation, I forget which). They considered it to not have enough modern equipment on-board and they didn't like the fact that it had only one crew.

 

That is why it was never used in any role other than 'terrorist hunting'.

 

Interesting statement regarding no one wanted a single seat attack heli. WHat is this refering to, please? Is there a story here?

[Kaktus29]

Its true, one pilot Ka-50 is too much.. even with automation that it has.. but it doesn't mean it can't do the job.. but should be used differently than normal combat front-line attack helicopters like Apache or Havoc ..

 

I guess a platform to guide and help lead Mi-24V's or Mi-35s it could still do its mission..

 

Of course the Russian military decided for the 2 seater so now they have their Ka-52 coupled with Mil Mi-28 Havoc..

 

Learning and becoming proficient must be easier in the Ka model .. which in the end reduces cost of training pilots.. also logistically speaking it is less complex so its easier to maintain as well.. having two rotors of same size, same design instead of one big and one small -meaning more different moving parts ..

 

for me, Ka-50 forever)) a one man assasin.. plus love the gun thump-ing as you are firing.. great gun..

 

for Ka-50 lovers.. enjoy this video.. love the music and of course the Ka-50 in it..

 

[GGTharos]

I guess a platform to guide and help lead Mi-24V's or Mi-35s it could still do its mission..

 

No, it is the Ka-50 that would be getting guidance and help. It's operational concept was to have 4 Ka-50's be lead by one Ka-52 (since they did not have Ka-52's when using Ka-50's before, they used a modified Ka-32 IIRC). The 'lead' would try to find an assign targets and coordinate fires.

 

Learning and becoming proficient must be easier in the Ka model .. which in the end reduces cost of training pilots.. also logistically speaking it is less complex so its easier to maintain as well.. having two rotors of same size, same design instead of one big and one small -meaning more different moving parts ..

 

That's not true. You have an extra complicated shaft to drive the counter-rotating rotors. There's nothing that makes the Ka-50 more economical other than having the reduced weight from dropping a second cockpit and crew member.

[Kaktus29]

i guess it works this way better yeah.. Ka-50 being guided by Ka-52.. but i have read of them leading more obsolete Mi-24 .. but as they upgraded the mi-24s this didn't make any sense any more..

 

about having pilot becoming more proficient in co-axial design i think this is true..its hard to contemplate how this would be more difficult than normal design of helicopter..

 

about maintenance i'm not sure, you could be right.. i just think loosing the rotor and all the moving parts that make it turn is harder to maintain plus you loose power because of this while in co-axial design you retain all the lifting power thus getting more power and stability not to mention wind stability which is important for all-weather design.. Ka-50 did great in mountainous Chechnya region where strong winds toss other helicopters with rotary design like rag-dolls and make it hard to fly yet alone hover..

 

the only drawback i think is 1 pilot design.. but with more tech and automation i think it is still valid experiment.. and showcasing where AH are going..

[sobek]

Single rotor helis are just as stable as easy to fly as a Ka-50 when paired with the automation systems that the Ka-50 sports. That heli does a lot of things for you to begin with ... while the Huey is very, very manual.

 

With the exception that the Ka-50 is still *very* stable in a hover with all the helpers disabled. The whole torque cross-coupling (and sideways force of the tail rotor) is eliminated by that system.

[dahui]

Jep,

 

Thats why the small Blade Koax Rotor RC Modells are so easy to Fly...

The Lower RotorDisc is the Steer Disc and the upper like the "Gyro"