Vincent S.Ryab Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 HI any one can list and explain the disadvantage of TAIL BOOM in helicopter?Please post the information RegardsVincent S.Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skids Up Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Not having one is a disadvantage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Hunt Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 You asked the same question in the thread you started on 14 June. Didn't you like the answers? The simplest answer is; in a helicopter designed to have a tail boom, losing it is a big ba-ba-boom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Turbue Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Maybe that's why he called it a tail BOOM. No, seriously. The only way to avoid the necessity for said tail rotor is two counterrotating main rotors (or a NOTAR). Although, I'd really appreciate any input by pilots having flown both as to how control differs. Cheers,Lance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skids Up Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 No, seriously. The only way to avoid the necessity for said tail rotor is two counterrotating main rotors (or a NOTAR). He didn't ask about a tail rotor, he asked about a tail boom. And the NOTAR still has a tail boom.... Sorry, it is a really odd question anyway.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeio540 Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 He didn't ask about a tail rotor, he asked about a tail boom. And the NOTAR still has a tail boom.... Sorry, it is a really odd question anyway.... I'm assuming that Vincent figures a tailboom to be a disadvantage because it is a component of a helicopter that extends beyond the radius of the rotor blades and usually, you put a very sensitive piece of equipment on the very end. Now if I'm not mistaken, some elementary physics comes into play. If you were to remove the tail boom, you'd have to create another way to counteract the moment produced by the main rotor. To give the same results as a long tailboom you'd need to attach an engine/thruster system producing considerably more thrust than the tail rotor because of the decrease in moment-arm. I think it is easier and more efficient to have the tail boom and tail rotor. Someone can double check me on this in case I've got it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brushfire21 Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 I think the original poster is off his rocker and sitting back watching us go in circles (no pun intended hahahaha!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.