And I would guess a way to wash out folks. Umm… you don’t throw and axe at a tree to chop it down.
Hi @Johnny_LA do you know what the story is on the question I raised in my post above?
To my knowledge, there is no such system. While there are stability augmentation systems (autopilots), it would be easier to make a drone-like ‘helicopter’ than to make a helicopter fly like a drone. Drones use multiple propellers that use differential thrust, while helicopters have a fairly complicated system with feathering, flapping, and lead-lag hinges. (NB: That’s for a fully-articulated rotor system. A semi-rigid rotor system lacks the lead-lag hinges, as the blades lead and lag as a unit. A rigid rotor system accounts for lead-lag and flapping via the elasticity of the blades.)
Except that as I said you can buy toy helicopters that have highly effective stability systems also.
From what I’ve seen, the rotor systems are much simpler on the toys.
I very much doubt that the rotor system would be so complicated a computer could not control it. If a $20 toy weighing a few grams can do it with a simple microprocessor, a working system could be used in a full size helicopter.
I don’t doubt you that such systems haven’t been installed for whatever reason (probably related to reliability or safety) but I very much doubt they couldn’t be, at some level.
Toy rotor systems tend to be pairs of fixed-pitch contra-rotating blades, or else fixed pitch blades with ‘paddles’ on a flybar. Real helicopter rotor systems require constant, minute inputs to maintain stability. Sure, a computer could control it just as they do on modern fighter aircraft. But weight is a real factor in helicopters. It takes twice the power to fly a helicopter at ⅔ of the speed of a fixed-wing aircraft. It just doesn’t make sense to build a helicopter that flies as automatically as a drone, compared to making a passenger-carrying drone.
Having spoken to helicopter pilots and instructors, knowledge of fixed wing flying is of little to no use, and in some instances can work against the rotorcraft student/desperate adventurer.
The usual outcome of the untutored attempts to fly a helicopter is a flight measured in seconds followed uncontrolled movements, impact with the ground/nearby stuff, and subsequent violent disassembly of said helicopter and occupants.
Flying a helicopter ain’t like dusting crops, kid. You forget to use the pedal or let your rotor speed droop and that’ll end your trip real quick.
It was somewhat unrealistic (in that he didn’t crash) but in the pilot for Airwolf, Hawk is working as a stunt pilot on a TV show, and the actor insists that he can fly the helicopter, and in fact he is so good that the last stunt pilot remarked he barely had to touch the controls at all. 
So hawk lets him fly. It goes something like:
Helicopter takes off straight up, spinning rapidly
Director: “What’s happening?”
Santini: “Not enough left pedal.”
Helicopter stops spinning, and rapidly spins the other direction
Santini: “Too much left pedal.”
Helicopter dives rapidly, flies 10 feet off the ground and high speed and pulls up into a steep climb.
Director: “What’s he doing?”
Santini: “looks like a hammerhead stall. I didn’t think you could do that in a helicopter.”*
Hawk takes control and immedialy stabilizes the aircraft. Then gets fired.
* Incorrect! A 500 can do it (obviously, because he did for the movie) and a lot of other acrobatic moves, including loops and rolls.
There appears to be at least one project in the works to abstract away the mechanical controls of a helicopter into a simple joystick + touchscreen interface.
Apparently the touchscreen is used for routing and the joysticks are used for immediate adjustments. Article says someone was able to hover and make a test flight after 45 minutes of training.
Fortunately, everything else about Airwolf was entirely realistic.
I loved that show as a kid. Tried to watch it a few years ago, and realized just how terrible it was.
Can’t argue there. But it sure was a good looking bird!
I still find the first three or so episodes to be first rate…but then the quality falls as fast as a helicopter with the collective dropped.
I rolled my eyes at Blue Thunder when Roy Schneider tricks Malcom McDowell into following him in a loop, and crashing him, because “helicopters can’t do loops.” (and BT could, being a Super Chopper, with Shush Mode™). It wouldn’t have been laughable if MM had been flying any other heli than the only (at least, at the time) one certified to do loops.
No, you can get full stability control on model helicopters that have fully articulated, collective pitch rotor hubs. Stability control just requires an inertial sensor and a model of what the controls do. Of course in RC it’s a lot easier to hook up, as everything is fly-by-wire. the IMU is generally just built into the receiver, or plugs in between the receiver and the servos. In a real,helicopter you’d have to have actuators for all the controls.
I don’t know if it’s the movie or an episode of MASH, but I liked the line A helicopter is an accident looking for a place to land. (I may be misremembering the quote).
My experience with flying helicopters is limited to Microsoft Flight Simulator, in which I found hovering to be pretty much impossible, but forward flight at any significant speed was a breeze. What this meant was that to get airborne, you had to apply lots of collective and forward cycling to get the hell away from the ground and into forward flight as rapidly as possible. Achieving a safe landing was damn near impossible because of the pre-landing hover that was required.
Now years later, and cognitively understanding more clearly the interactions between changes in collective input, tail rotor input, and cyclic inputs, it seems more analogous to riding a unicycle in that you can’t practice any single thing in isolation (like the accelerator, brake and steering in a car). The only way to learn is to practice doing all these things at the same time, and the only way to do that without a high probability of self-destruction is to have an instructor aboard.
Which adds weight and complexity and more things to certify, maintain, and go wrong. As I said, you can make a helicopter fly like a drone, but it would be easier (and probably cheaper) to make a passenger-carrying drone.
How come no real helicopters use the two counter rotating blades arrangement?
Wikipedia lists 36 real helicopter models with coaxial contra-rotating rotors. Though I feel like the inclusion of Ingenuity in the list is a bit questionable.
Also plenty of helicopters with dual non-coaxial rotors:
Same net effect of not needing a tail rotor. Dunno if they’re any easier to fly, though.