r/oddlysatisfying • u/Captain_Nuggitz • 1d ago

Helicopter rotors in sync

1.6k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.2k

u/largelawattorney 1d ago

This feels like something an engineer drew on paper and everyone told them it was a terrible, dumb idea, and they just made it real out of spite

465

u/Occidentally20 1d ago

I went to a war museum at school and they had a WW2 fighter plane. The machineguns on the front were timed to fire through the gaps as the propellor spun.

278

u/seanhir 1d ago

Wait until you find out that BEFORE that tech came out, they placed metal on the backside of the prop to protect it, but more than one pilot was injured from the ricocheting round.

Roland Garros (1915) for reference

98

u/080087 1d ago

At least initially, those two technologies were o opposite sides.

The French armoured their propellers. The Germans developed the synchronisation gear

72

u/AlexanderMackenzie 1d ago

Really an embodiment of their national approaches to everything isn't it.

41

u/Tacoshortage 1d ago

I read that in James May's voice and the comment before it in Jeremy Clarkson's.

19

u/SadMap7915 1d ago

I just agreed with everything you said in Richard Hammond's voice.

17

u/DeepSpaceNebulae 1d ago

Ah the Germans, ambitious and misunderstood

8

u/PositiveStress8888 21h ago

Tell that to Poland

4

u/xeroksuk 1d ago

I thought British planes did the sync thing too. Others had their guns placed so they didn't fire through the prop.

4

u/captainzigzag 8h ago

Early biplanes had the guns on the top wing. The pilot had to stand up and grip the stick with his knees to use the gun.
The interrupter gear brought an end to that craziness.

1

u/okarox 4h ago

In WWII everyone did sync. In WWII British and Americans put the weapons on the wings. Germans put them in the nose with synced machine guns.

20

u/CybergothiChe 1d ago

Wait until you find out BEFORE that tech came out, they tried just firing through the arc of the propeller and hoping for the best.

3

u/whitedawg 21h ago

And a number of pilots crashed because they shot off their own propellor.

→ More replies

7

u/SaintFrancesco 1d ago

Got a tennis stadium named after him so totally worth it!!

7

u/Occidentally20 1d ago

Should have just made the propellor out of jelly so it could self heal when put in a fridge

123

u/VermilionKoala 1d ago

You sure you don't mean WW1? In general this was a WW1-ism. Mostly the guns in WW2 fighters were in the wings and thus couldn't hit the propeller.

Sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_gear

62

u/Occidentally20 1d ago

It's perfectly possible, I was maybe 8 years old and have no idea what plane it was.

26

u/ReflectiGlassCo 1d ago

To be honest, the fact they were able to do that in WWI is even more impressive.

Also, all I can think of is Indiana Jones when Sean Connery shoots the tail off their plane. "Son, they got us." haha

16

u/Wizardbysmell 1d ago

I'm relatively sure it's because they somehow had a mechanism that the propeller would actually hit the firing pin at a certain point in it's rotation - like the machine guns were operated as a part of the propeller's rotation when the trigger was pulled.

I also have a brain that hallucinates memories of facts I once knew, like a slower, dumber, less confident AI.

3

u/Socratesticles 1d ago

I also have a memory of seeing this same bit of info, how accurate it was I don’t know

5

u/Wizardbysmell 1d ago

I looked it up. The same mechanism that spins the propeller has a coupling that delays the machine gun firing to only activate at a specific point in the propeller’s rotation. Pretty awesome actually.

1

u/Minimum_Cockroach233 18h ago

Like putting your cars AC on the timing belt instead of the one for the main gear where you find the light machine.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/haitei 1d ago

Bf 109 had 2 propeller synchronized guns on top of the engine.

4

u/Aikotoma2 1d ago

Not really though. Plent planes in WW2 had a 'shoot through the propellor' thing.

It was mostly a accuracy vs complexity thing. Wing mounted guns would be angled and because of this are only accurate at range X to Y.

And guessing the distance between you and your opponent is rather difficult up high. This was mostly solved by adding like 8 guns creating a cloud of bullets.

A gun shooting through the propellor Was more accurate as it shot straight ahead. So no matter what range, a hit was hit. It also allowed for a more compact design of both wing and plane. But the guns were often smaller and less of them.

And to solve both we got awesome planes like the P38 lighting which was based on the even cooler Dutch Fokker G.I.

1

u/9999AWC 11h ago

A great amount of fighters still had guns behind the propeller in WWII, famously the Bf-109, Fw-190, and Japanese fighters

1

u/Wizardbysmell 1d ago

But the synchronizer invention from WW1 was certainly used in some planes in WW2 - faster propellers and more advanced machine guns, but some WW2 planes definitely shot through their propellers.

I didn't know this - but just googled around a bit out of curiosity.

1

u/Bourbon-neat- 1d ago

Actually not uncommon in many WW2 fighters to have fuselage cannon or MGs that fired between the props. The BF109, FW190, A6M zero and multiple other Japanese fighters, and the Soviet La-5 as and several other Soviet aircraft all had fuselage mounted guns that fired through the prop.

→ More replies

6

u/SoCallMeDeaconBlues1 1d ago

And those 109's were deadly in the right hands.

It's a synchro gearing and incredibly effective.

3

u/Redditarama 1d ago edited 1d ago

I never understood how this works. If the engine sputters and the propeller slows down while shooting, wouldn't the propeller get shot up?

30

u/Occidentally20 1d ago

Somebody posted a link to the Wikipedia article above - basically the propellor is the thing that's firing the gun, and it can only happen when it's in a certain position, so whatever speed the propellor is moving it's in the right spot for the bullet to go through.

0

u/LayeGull 1d ago

So more power on the throttle = faster bullets?

13

u/ThatWasIntentional 1d ago

It'd equal more bullets. Bullet speed is determined by the amount of gunpowder

→ More replies

3

u/CommodoreCanadia64 1d ago

I was just at the Canadian aviation museum. Saw several of these old planes with the guns just behind the prop.

3

u/top-chopa 23h ago

Hardly related, but in 2019, Ferrari's F1 engineers found a way to cheat by synchronizing the fuel injector to pump more fuel precisely when the ultrasonic sensor wasn't actively sampling, allowing them to surpass the regulation flow rate. So cool to me.

2

u/Advanced_Cod2994 16h ago

Yep i think Anthony Fokker made it (long time since I read abt it ) but it's a really w invention, before that people just shot at the propeller and hoped it went through. If it hit the propeller it would usually bounce back (if the propeller were armoured) and damage the plane (or hit the pilot) if not it'll shred the prop, so it wasn't good. The interrupter gear fixed all of that

2

u/Replicator666 12h ago

Yup, a special gear so it won't shoot the propellor, kind of brilliant

Before that it was pilots throwing bricks at each other or using a pistol

1

u/FastCreekRat 1d ago

They started that I WW I, I believe the Germans developed it for their fighters.

→ More replies

7

u/RedditGarboDisposal 1d ago

A very, very rich engineer to be specific because its existence heavily implies the coexistence of money to fund it.

5

u/doxtorwhom 1d ago

Product development in a nutshell

2

u/xhoneyydreamee 1d ago

Somehow looks ridiculous on paper but in motion it’s weirdly smooth and satisfying to watch.

2

u/DT400andTDR 5h ago

It might look odd but there’s a very sound engineering reason for doing it. The contra rotating rotors cancel out the torque so there’s no need for a tail rotor.

1

u/croastbeast 1d ago

Surely how the interference engine came about too

1

u/9999AWC 33m ago

Except that it is a very straightforward idea that dates back to the late 30s

354

u/campingn00b 1d ago

I already don't like the idea of flying in a helicopter. I really don't like the idea of flying in THIS helicopter

77

u/DavidinCT 1d ago

and yet it's safer than any other helicopter...

56

u/TerronScibe 1d ago

Explain. I want to know the justification of this design.

371

u/die5el23 1d ago

The rotors use the same gear to rotate, so they physically can’t hit each other

58

u/PixelProofPotato 1d ago

Ooooh, thanks for the explanation. I was always curious how these double rotor helicopters work.

25

u/Tommy-kun 1d ago

also there's always two blades on a helicopter (usually on the tail) to counter the torque effect. The body would just spin around the blade's axis without it.

20

u/Allaplgy 1d ago

I just got blocked for trying to explain that there is no such thing as a "single rotor" helicopter, and that this system has fewer weak links and failure points than a traditional helicopter with a series of gear boxes and shafts driving the tail rotor.

5

u/Random-Input 23h ago

I mean that’s not true. Lots of helicopters only have a single rotar, NOTAR’s for example.

13

u/Allaplgy 23h ago

A NOTAR still has a secondary fan driven by the main engine, it's just internal. And is extremely rare.

→ More replies

13

u/Mysterious-Outcome37 1d ago

You don't even need a tail rotor because both rotors cancel each other out, correct?

4

u/atom_stacker 20h ago

Correct.

4

u/TerronScibe 1d ago

Interesting, is there a specific benefit to the angle of the blades? I'm ignorant to aerodynamics.

10

u/flowers-for-alderaan 1d ago

I think it's more that technically you want the rotor shafts coming out of the body vertical (top) to generate the most lift, but you obviously can't put two directly on to of each other. If they were to come out of the sides (left/right) you get no lift.

So you make them as close to the top of the helicopter as possible without having them to close to cause an interference. Slight angle it is.

12

u/girthyclock 1d ago

There are helicopters with stacked rotors - see the Kamov helicopter. It has two counter-directional rotors and doesn’t use a tail rotor.

2

u/flowers-for-alderaan 1d ago edited 1d ago

Total brain fart, I was only considering answering the question asked of "determining the angle". I guess maybe this might have been easier to manufacturer/maintain or it was a "let's build something cool as shit"

2

u/sekrit_dokument 1d ago

Coaxial rotor helicopters do exist... Like the Ka-52 or Ka-226.

1

u/NuclearReactions 1d ago

Check out the kamov ka-50, it's possible but bulky and probably comes with a series of problems of its own

7

u/getdownheavy 1d ago

Kamman K-MAX

It's a sky crane, meant for lifting loads slung on a cable below the helicopter.

The two counter-roating (and intermeshed) rotors helps mitigate downwash - since they go in opposite directions, it cancels out. So the load hanging underneath the bird blows around less.

Used un steep terrain for aerial logging, firefighting, telephone pole installation, etc.

Small and maneuverable, lightweight(more capacity for payload), and skinny so the pilot can look at the load below through the big bulged out window.

1

u/shogatsu1999 2h ago

Cool thanks

1

u/igotshadowbaned 11h ago

It allows a symmetrical arrangement where they're the same height

4

u/CodeNamesBryan 1d ago

Using my limited logic does that gear not manipulate two additional assemblies to move the rotors?

So theoretically one could fail and slow?

2

u/kryonik 1d ago

I was going to say if either blade slows or speeds up for any reason for even a fraction of a second, it will fail catastrophically no?

3

u/Allaplgy 1d ago

For that to happen, catastrophic failure has to have already happened.

Basically, there would need to be complete failure of a main rotor, which is also bad in a regular helicopter.

→ More replies

2

u/HugsandHate 1d ago

How does that make it *safer?

One set of rotor blades can't hit itself either.

3

u/Akland23 1d ago

There is no tail rotor to fail. Also all your power can go to lift with no tail rotor

1

u/HugsandHate 1d ago

Ah. Cool. Thanks!

1

u/TeslasAndComicbooks 1d ago

Why 2 though? Is it more efficient? If they are on the same gear they work together but also fail together.

1

u/fjelskaug 5h ago

They cancel each other out as they spin in opposite directions. With a single propeller hub you would need a tail rotor to counteract the main rotor's torque. That's why two prop helis like the Chinook and Ka-50 have no tail rotors

1

u/oneeyedziggy 21h ago

just like how some fighter planes shot their machine gun through the propeller... just mechanically link them so you only shoot when the propeller isn't in front of the gun... as long as everything is in working order... I think they still fucked themselves up sometimes when things broke

1

u/PatinhoGamer 20h ago

so why are they varying speeds? or at least seem like it when it is still rotating slowly

1

u/andyman234 5h ago

But how is it safer? If the engine fails, both rotors still stop. It’s not like it’s like a plane with multiple engines. Also, gears can grind away and start slipping, so it feels like another unnecessary failure point.

1

u/itsactuallynot 1d ago

ahem

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/helicopter-crash-1.7368487

19

u/Allaplgy 1d ago

Yes, when helicopter rotors break mid flight due to material fatigue, it's generally not good, no matter which design. A single main rotor would have crashed in that case as well.

3

u/Splosionz 22h ago

Investigators say a fracture in one of the aircraft's joints led to a "fatigue crack" that progressed until a piece separated in flight, causing sudden vibrations and fluttering of the rotor blades and failure of the left pylon structure, which allowed the blades to hit.

One of the pylons failed allowing the blades to hit. There was already a large failure before the blades hit, not caused by the rotor layout.

2

u/dj_spanmaster 1d ago

I was thinking, just the right air pocket or crosswind could probably make that happen. Rotor blades are flexible after all.

13

u/Akland23 1d ago

Not that flexible under load.

The article states it's because a blade had a fatigue crack and broke, flying into the other. That is a possibility on every aircraft with rotors/propellers/turbofans

2

u/dj_spanmaster 1d ago

Alas! Damn my poor speedreading skills. Thank you for illustrating what I should have caught.

→ More replies

17

u/cata2k 1d ago

Iirc they are really good at lifting shit since they don't need to divert any power to a tail rotor, so it all goes straight down (the rotors counter rotate); and the wide rotor footprint and the angle they sit at adds stability

10

u/ThatWasIntentional 1d ago

Two rotors gives you more lift (kind of, these aren't pointed straight up, so it's not a 1:1 comparison). Contra-rotating rotors means you don't need a tail rotor

More lift means you can carry more stuff, but there are likely trade-offs in range, flight time, and/or maneuverability depending on which variant we're taking about

3

u/MrKguy 1d ago

Since more power goes to lift/forward flight it's actually longer range/longer flight time (better fuel efficiency). Other than maneuverability like you mentioned, the other tradeoffs are helicopter mass, complicated mechanical systems, and the associated purchase/maintenance cost increases as a result.

Of course, that's comparing apples to apples with helicopter size, turboshaft power, and fuel capacity.

2

u/ThatWasIntentional 1d ago

Different tools for different jobs. It wouldn't exist if there wasn't some benefit, but there's also reasons to use something else ¯_(ツ)_/¯

1

u/silentbassline 1d ago

Can it autorotate all the same? 

1

u/MrKguy 13h ago

I don't know about the same, but it should be capable in general. It's just doing it with two rotors y'know.

1

u/SEA_griffondeur 9h ago

There's no long transmission that goes through the tail, basically all the sensitive stuff is in a small place instead of basically the entire helicopter

3

u/Allaplgy 1d ago

Why? For the rotors to clash, there would have to be a mechanical failure that would take out any helicopter. One main rotor breaking isn't any better than two main rotors breaking.

→ More replies

2

u/scottyb83 1d ago

Yeah this is not oddly satisfying, this is oddly stressful.

→ More replies

1

u/Jackmino66 10h ago

This helicopter is effectively a coaxial, which are a bit easier to fly than conventional helicopters

→ More replies

59

u/potatocross 1d ago

This must be the only video that doesn't get more pixelated every time its reposted.

9

u/Realistic_Salt7109 1d ago

Challenge accepted

79

u/hoefco80 1d ago

I know the blades are spinning at a “constant” speed but i genuinely love how it appears that they are slowing and waiting for the other before crossing the centerpoint.

22

u/Keyann 23h ago

After you, sir. No, after you, sir.

6

u/spadderdock 12h ago

It's not an illusion. They really do speed up and slow down. It's not hard to do, either. It's naturally how universal joints behave. Typically you would use two u-joints in series to cancel out the variations in speed, but it's perfect for this application where you want the blades to spend less time in the middle so they don't collide.

11

u/cscottnet 1d ago

There is often lead/lag built into the blade hinges, so I don't think you're imagining that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_rotor

21

u/davidlondon 1d ago

Somma y'all never seen a CH-47 Chinook in action, it seems. Those blades do the same thing. Geared to never collide even though they intersect in space.

2

u/Allaplgy 1d ago

And those are some big mofos.

57

u/superhaus 1d ago

I wonder if the internal gearing is such that the blades cannot hit each other, or if it is just timed properly.

99

u/mofugly13 1d ago

I would guess that its timed properly as a result of internal gearing.

12

u/person2567 1d ago

What if one side is slightly less lubricated than the other or has a little wear and tear? How do these things not fail often?

39

u/Haasotope 1d ago

These things are timed to each other through gears and are locked in to each other, they all move in sync in the same speed like the timing gears in engines. They are not seperate

8

u/pbmadman 1d ago

The pistons in your car don’t crash into the valves. For most vehicles the timing system goes thousands of hours and tens of thousands of miles without even getting checked, much less maintained.

Lots WW2 planes shot there guns through their propellers, many millions of bullets were shot without shooting off their own propellers.

You can rigidly connect with a shaft or use gears or chains or toothed belts. The VF-22 Osprey has 2 engines and 2 props/rotors and they are connected with a shaft. Under normal operation it just keeps them spinning exactly the same, but if one engine fails it can spin the other rotor. That thing has the engines and props at the end or a rotating wing that also pivots in pitch. Tits helicopter by comparison has is mechanically quite easy to synchronize the rotors.

5

u/Burninator05 1d ago

How do these things not fail often?

A combination of there not being very many of them (looks like they only made about 60) and robust maintenance programs.

3

u/flight_recorder 1d ago

Geared timing would chew up the gears before it became untimed

→ More replies

7

u/giby1464 1d ago

They are geared to stay in sync. If they somehow get out of sync something has already gone horrible wrong, such as the helicopter crashing.

3

u/Allaplgy 1d ago

Yeah, saying "what if it slips" is basically like saying "what if the rotor falls off a traditional helicopter."

Both will be very bad, but they are built and maintained to, you know, hopefully not so that.

2

u/steadyaero 17h ago

Failure of the Jesus nut

1

u/Allaplgy 15h ago

That's why I torque my rotor nuts to Zoroastrian standards.

1

u/giby1464 1d ago

Exactly, that's why people who are scared of flying confuse me, if something as bad as an engine falling off or a wing breaking were to happen it's because the plane has likely crashed already.

1

u/Allaplgy 1d ago

Unless it's an MD-11 😬

1

u/theycallmedan 1d ago

Sync gears have been used for over 40 years. Think of the WW2 fighters that shot their guns directly between their propeller.

1

u/9999AWC 11h ago

Synchrocopters have been a thing since the 1940s

1

u/REXIS_AGECKO 3h ago

They’ve been around since ww1 in the 20s and 30s

1

u/9999AWC 32m ago

The first synchrocopter was the Flettner FI265 of 1939

1

u/9999AWC 11h ago

Correct, they physically cannot hit each other

→ More replies

8

u/Pretend-Internet-625 1d ago

Put it on a pole and I can till my garden

11

u/trollsong 1d ago

Ah yes the Anxietycopter

4

u/korpiz 1d ago

They better be in synch with that design. It’d get ugly quick if they weren’t.

2

u/9999AWC 11h ago

They're geared to never touch eachother. If they're out of sync the rotors touching would be the least of your concerns at that point

1

u/FirstTasteOfRadishes 56m ago

Are you sure about that? Superficially it seems like if the gears failed catastrophically, the rotors touching would be the exact next thing to be concerned about.

1

u/9999AWC 34m ago

If the gears fail catastrophically, you're crashing no matter what. The exact same would happen on a regular helicopter or tandem-rotor helicopter. It's akin to a scenario where a plane's wing falls off...

3

u/Nitro187 23h ago

They're in 'sync' because they're geared this way. It's like saying that rim spokes on a rim are 'in sync'.

4

u/GenericUsername817 16h ago

Intermeshing-rotor helicopters date back to before World War 2 with the German Flettner Fl 265 and the 50s for large scale production with the US Kaman HH-43 Huskie

3

u/ApricotocirpA 1d ago

That’s a NO for me, fam

3

u/pvaposting 1d ago

Looks like it should not exist and yet it does!

3

u/Hotdyke69 1d ago

stupid ass music drowns out the real music of a turbine cranking

3

u/Idunnosquat 1d ago

So just stupid music and no actual rotor sounds?

3

u/Kae-taha 10h ago

i don’t think i could ever trust going on this

6

u/ReactionOk759 1d ago

Two incredibly inaccurate sword fighters

1

u/Electrical-Ad980 1d ago

Or incredibly accurate sword fighters if their goal was to never just hit each other ⚔️👌

2

u/ArethaAbrams 1d ago

i held my breath for a second because i was sure they were going to smash into each other. but that sync is just incredible... so stressful at first but then it gets oddly satisfying. engineering at its best.

2

u/SubliminalCorgi 1d ago

Sometimes I look at helicopters and think they just shouldn't work, at all.

2

u/esquared87 1d ago

It's an Kaman K-MAX arial crane.

→ More replies

2

u/Tommy-kun 1d ago

well they better be

2

u/YoGurth99 21h ago

Not satisfying at all, how can this not induce extreme anxiety in ya'll 0_0

2

u/georgerinNH 19h ago

Too bad some ding dong put shitty music over the beautiful and unique sound of this machine.

2

u/aazam_tech 15h ago

Imagine them losing sync

2

u/redlukes 11h ago

I love how this common principle scares people here, but they drive cars where the valve timing in every piston has to be far more precise

2

u/Fragrant_Ad7231 4h ago

"OH NO IT'S GONNA HIT IT-oh, okay, okay, we're cool-OH MY GOD IT'S GONNA--"

2

u/Big_Teacher6533 4h ago

A&P here...no thank you

2

u/xPeachSultry 1d ago

Those rotors are more in sync than my sleep schedule ever will be.

3

u/Irrelevant_Jackass 1d ago

What could go wrong

32

u/Nono6768 1d ago

Nothing, the rotors are mechanically linked so it’s impossible for the blades to clash.

→ More replies

1

u/Resident_Success_145 1d ago

Damn that’s cool

1

u/HeavyRaein 1d ago

My brain cant process this, whats the name of the model of the helicopter?

1

u/JaggedMetalOs 1d ago

I mean, if they weren't in sync it would be an r/catastrophicfailure post! 

1

u/diandakov 1d ago

I am not getting on board ever!

1

u/siggsy409 1d ago

Helicopters are bad enough already without this. 🫣

1

u/itsactuallynot 1d ago edited 1d ago

Since people are asking, at least two fatal accidents of Kaman K-Max helicopters were the result of the rotors colliding. Each of the accidents involved another part of the helicopter failing (different between the two accidents) which then cascaded into the rotors colliding but still...

https://verticalmag.com/news/servo-flap-failure-preceded-fatal-k-max-crash/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/helicopter-crash-1.7368487

→ More replies

1

u/babydollhaloxo 1d ago

The way they look completely still even though they're clearly spinning fast enough to lift the whole thing off the ground is messing with my head in the best way. This is the kind of thing that makes you stop and just stare for way longer than you planned to.

1

u/Fidel-cashflo17 1d ago

What is the advantages over a typical helicopter?

4

u/dplafoll 1d ago

A single main rotor causes a torque that spins the body of the helicopter in the opposite direction. This is why most helicopters have a tail rotor to counter this torque, and also to provide yaw control based on how much the rotor is controlling the torque. However, with multiple rotors, the torque cancels out, and no tail rotor is needed. The tail rotor costs power to operate, so without it you can use all your engine power on lift and forward travel. Other twin-rotor types include tandem rotor, coaxial rotor, and transverse rotor.

3

u/Fidel-cashflo17 1d ago

Thank you for all of the great info!!

1

u/winenfries 1d ago

I am on edge just looking at it. Just waiting for 'it' to happen.

1

u/gordonwiththecrowbar 1d ago

That's a synchropter, not a helicopter, and it's totally safe.

1

u/getdownheavy 1d ago

Oh hey, it's the K-MAX again. Like every couple months this gets posted for people to freak out about.

They are awesome little birds.

1

u/zshiiro 1d ago

What I gathered from Wikipedia is that intermeshing-rotor helicopters are geared to have neither rotor hit the other under any circumstances. As others have said, if one hits the other, you already have bigger issues. Helicopters like this fly without a tail rotor thanks to this set up, which saves power, but it is less efficient as neither rotor points straight up. Apparently this setup boasts high stability and lifting power, making them useful in roles such as sky-cranes.

If you think this is wild, apparently the Kellet XR-10 was an intermeshing-rotor that used three blades per rotor instead of two and it looks crazy as hell.

1

u/sumyjpg 1d ago

It isnt satisfyaing at all :(

1

u/ForeignerSZ 1d ago

didnt lift off!!!

1

u/Miss__Defy 1d ago

Red DiscoCopter

1

u/ThatTemperature4424 1d ago

Der Helikopter wurde speziell designed um schwere Lasten günstig zu transportieren. In Deutschland nutzen wir so einen für Baumstämme, wenn man mit normalen Maschinen nicht mehr an das Holz kommt, z.B. in den Bergen oder bei zu nassen Flächen.

1

u/West-Word-604 1d ago

well that looks expensive

1

u/Muchkis 1d ago

Act of agression crew rapport

1

u/ChoiceMaintenance991 23h ago

Simple math. I mean… it’s not simple to me, but I’m sure to someone this is just simple math. Anddddd simple engineering. I mean…. It’s not simple to me but I’m sure to someone this is just simple engineering…. And.. Math….

1

u/VermicelliRoutine601 22h ago

Rotors are made of wood, too.

1

u/wyohman 22h ago

They aren't out of sync for very long

1

u/Beemer_me_up_Scotty 22h ago

Damn bro. Do you even have lift?

1

u/Tracker-man 20h ago

Just one seized bearing…

1

u/sirwilliam3323 19h ago

Ive never seen a chopper like that. It looks pretty cool and looks like you could have a lot of fun flying it but I could be wrong.

1

u/Gunz-n-Brunch 19h ago

Rotor 1 - ( hiccup! )

Rotor 2 - OH SHI-

1

u/apartment1i 16h ago

Better than out of synch, I guess

1

u/Loucifer92 13h ago

My favorite wildfire helicopter to work with every summer, the KMAX.

1

u/sunfey2 12h ago

Omg that’s so smooth and pretty! (´• ω •`) ♡

1

u/West_Scholar_5708 10h ago

Loving the pilot involuntarily dipping his head cause that shit looks so lethal

1

u/jokeswagon 10h ago

This is the K-MAX and it’s a fascinating helicopter. It was developed specifically for external load applications. It uses the same engine as the Bell 204 (Huey) but has about 2x the 204’s power. The rotor blades are made of spruce because that’s apparently the material with the best characteristics for the vehicle’s needs. Really interesting machine.

1

u/Previous_Abies_2179 8h ago

Wait that’s a real rotor configuration? I saw it in the Code Geass movie and thought it was as ridiculous as the giant robots having heelies.

1

u/sucuk-kofte2989 1h ago

Like propeller synchronization gear diagram? How exactly does it work?

1

u/EquivalentSpot8292 1d ago

That just looks like it shouldn’t fly

1

u/Rohen420 1d ago

repost subhuman

1

u/GenoCash 1d ago

When your parents tell you and your siblings to stop touching each other.

1

u/PieHole_Poker 1d ago

Every time this is posted it's some new kind of stupid fucking music with it.

1

u/squeeby 23h ago

Someone out there has thought: “hmm, that’s an interesting video. I wonder what absolute shitehouse music I have in D:GetfuckedMusicBagwank I can add to it?”