Quote from: LL on May 21, 2024, 11:39:28Seems quite dangerous and a much bigger footprint. There are a couple helicopters without tail rotor: Hughes NOTAR, also Kaman and Kamovs with contra rotating propellers

Elimination of a tail rotor is consequence rather than goal. It's all about cruise speed/ efficiency where helicopters have historically suffered. It's either this or tilt-rotor. The problem isn't the tail rotor, it's actually the main rotor as it pulls double duty - it lifts you up and propels you forward. Fixed wings are better at lifting and propellers better at propelling. You have the advantage of vertical take-off but you pay for it in cruise. With something like NOTAR, the advantage is that if a tail rotor is not there, it doesn't make noise, cannot break or get hit. But it doesn't make you go faster. And 220 kn is still fairly slow (lightning fast in the world of helicopters).

Quote from: LL on May 21, 2024, 11:39:28Seems quite dangerous and a much bigger footprint. There are a couple helicopters without tail rotor: Hughes NOTAR, also Kaman and Kamovs with contra rotating propellers

There are also coaxial and tandem rotors, but this isn't just about doing away with the tail rotor; it's about improved speed and efficiency, which the other rotors provide. As for safety, yeah, maybe a bit less safe, but I'm guessing those rotors aren't spinning on the ground except right before takeoff and after landing, and they're probably kept to a minimum while hovering, just enough to offset the main rotor torque while not enough to pull someone into them, not to mention they're placed farther back to keep them as far away as possible and with the wing helping to block them.

Seems quite dangerous and a much bigger footprint. There are a couple helicopters without tail rotor: Hughes NOTAR, also Kaman and Kamovs with contra rotating propellers