Dave: I just drove down hiway 395 where there were a bunch of "mass
accepted" automobiles and drivers that I wish were in drivers ed a bunch
longer. I think that if everyone of those drivers were in an intermeshing
helicopter headed toward the ski area, we would have aluminum showeres to
end all showers. If the death of the tail rotor leads to providing these
guys with a helicopter, I will vote to keep the tail rotor. BTW I don't
seem to have much trouble flying the tail rotor. I would have trouble in an
auto rotation in a ship where the controls need to be reversed.
I think 10 yr old scotch ought to do it. Even older, if we share it.
Stu
"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
news:S5%0e.785167$Xk.347264@pd7tw3no...
Hi Stu,

"Dave your obvious hatred for the tail rotor makes me believe that you
have been injured by one at one time or another."

No. It was the rotorcraft industry that was injured when Igor got too
eager
to get something off the ground.


"No one has demonstrated that they [twin lateral main rotors] can be
economically produced."

Henry Ford proved the economies of large-scale production. To design and
produce a few 'Ford type' cars in a local machine shop would cost more
than
a half-million dollars per car. Unfortunately, in rotorcraft there is one
civilian helicopter for every half-million people.

"If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your
door."


"It just doesn't seem possible to make a ship with the additional main
rotor system and transmission system and control system that can compete
with the standard tail rotor ship."

I agree. For today's homebuilder; the price, the building, the
displaying,
and the pride of flying a craft with limited stability, is the pleasure
and
it is the market. The gyrocopter is epitome of this.

However, for mass acceptance, the single-rotor equivalent of the
'unicycle'
must be morphed into the twin-rotor equivalent of the lower cost
'bicycle'.

How old is the Scotch whiskey?

Dave
Not coincidentally