FWIW, I looked up Make: Kaman, Model: H-43 on the FAA Registry. There were six listed, two of which did not have a location entry. Three of the aircraft have turbine engines, and three have reciprocating engines.
It’s interesting that the certified aircraft weight is 12,499 pounds – just below the limit for single-pilot operation.
I was thinking the rudder acted in place of the tail rotor allowing the helicopter to rotate.
Fascinating stuff. Intuitively I would have thought that any helicopter with a dual counter-rotating blade system would necessarily have to have a coaxial shaft system, like Ingenuity currently flying around on Mars. The Kaman K-MAX design with the shafts on opposite sides of the airframe at first glance seems impossible. It’s quite a clever design.
Those Wikipics make my brain hurt. How to make an already insanely complex system even more so. Thanks for the info!
Looks like Central Copters has THREE K-maxes in Bozeman! That must be the biggest fleet in the US! I need to go check them out!
Here’s a set of articles I should have linked about the various flavors of helo rotor architecture. They’re in the same order as in my post above. Some are a bit skimpy, others more complete. Scary stuff to a fixed-wing aviator like myself.
Looks cool. Plus a few other helos. If you’re intrigued by K-MAXs, check out YouTube. IIRC there’s some interesting Discovery Channel stuff as well about heli-logging.
As I’ve said in various places, IANA rated helo pilot*. But I’ve flown them a bit and read a lot about them.
You’re falling into the fixed-wing thinking trap of forgetting that helos need yaw control with zero forward airspeed. Yaw control has to work whether going forwards, backwards, sideways, corkscrewing, or stationary versus the relative wind. There is a place in at least some helos for airplane-like control surfaces. But those are in addition to, not instead of, control effectors that work via the rotor system.
* As soon as I win the Powerball I will have an MD520N to park on my yacht along with my Swedish Bikini Security Team to ensure I’m kept safe (& happy 
). And a helo rating to fly my team to various secluded spots.
Yes but if you look at the Huskie vs the Kaman they’re set up differently. The Kaman is designed to lift stuff and precise rotation of what is being lifted would be important. the exhaust is aimed at the rudder. This is different than the Huskie which goes out of it’s way to extend the exhaust beyond the rudders. The Huskie is more plane like with 4 vertical stabilizers, 2 rudders and an elevator.
The Huskie is a Kaman.
I obtained a HH-43 pilot manual from my favorite online library. The subscription is totally worth it if you’re a plane nut.
Per the manual …
The “elevator” is essentially a trim surface that compensates for a nose-up tendency at high airspeeds. The pilot has no direct control over it.
The yaw pedals affect the rotors only and serve to rotate the helo in yaw, or to hold it steady in yaw. There are 4 vertical fins; 2 on each side of the helo. The smaller outboard ones are fixed. The larger inboard ones are mostly fixed, but do have a small rudder at the trailing edge.
Those rudders are controlled by a stability augmentation system akin to a yaw damper on airplanes. It locks out at cruise speeds but is effective in low speeds. Which is a bit confusing. The pilot manual doesn’t say why it does what it does, just that it does what it does. It’s even unclear whether this system exists to boost yaw response at slow speeds, or to reduce it. My guess is to reduce it, but that’s me, not the engineers, talking.
Whatever the hell is going on with this weird beast, conventional airplane thinking ain’t it.
Yes, I pointed that earlier earlier. Huskie vs K Max.
You’re not listening to what I’m saying.
They’re set up differently. the K max has the exhaust aimed at the rudder. It should be able to rotate while hovering with this set up for precise maneuvering. It’s specifically designed to lift things.
Aviation writer Martha Lunken’s pilot certificates revoked - AOPA
The FAA has revoked author and Flying magazine Contributing Editor Martha Lunken’s pilot certificates because she flew under a bridge in Ohio in 2020.
The outspoken 98-pound aviator who has delivered hundreds of checkrides to pilots of Douglas DC–3s, Lockheed Model 18 Lodestars, and Fairchild Swearingen Metroliners said the enforcement action hit her hard… The certificate revocation letter contained a phrase that said Lunken could not be trusted to conform with aviation regulations, and it mandated that she reapply for flying privileges as a student, which she plans to do…
I looked over my shoulder and saw the bridge and I said out loud, ‘God, before I get too old, I have to fly under that bridge one time.’”
Lunken said that “it provided no danger to anyone, but of course I knew it was illegal. But I did it anyway.”
Heh. That’s probably the first thing I’d wanna do if I ever got my pilot’s license.
Who doesn’t want to fly under a bridge?
Personally, I think revoking her licenses is a bit harsh. I understand that they take away all of the hours you logged too, so you’re starting with a blank logbook. I think a fine and a year’s suspension might have been a more appropriate penalty.
She’s a local fixture in my area and I knew exactly which bridge it was before reading it.
I think the FAA went too far.
Unfortunately the Feds really have to take an extra-dim view of deliberate pre-planned rule violations. Even if the “pre-planning” is a matter of a minute or two. And especially so if the pilot in question is a celebrity, an FAA designee, or worse yet, both.
Do I understand the attraction to fly under the bridge? Sure. Do I understand the FAA’s problem, once there is unequivocal video evidence in the possession of some other agency or person? Unfortunately I do.
In my bit of the industry we’ve had to get used to the idea that 100% of what we do is recorded and later analyzed. Plus it’s being video recorded by multiple smartphones and security cameras both inside and outside the airplane. 100% of anomalies will be found out and investigated; there simply isn’t any “Just this one time in private; nobody will know.” If you won’t be happy with it as the headline of the local newspaper, don’t do it.
That hyper-monitored reality is coming to your car, your neighborhood, your phone, and your lightplane. If it’s not already there. Even if there’s no “black box” onboard, the outside world is full of spies watching you. Behave accordingly. She was busted due to a vid camera on the bridge owned by the Ohio DOT’s highway division.
In many ways this is terrible news for humanity. I don’t celebrate it. But I do think anyone who flies (and increasingly anyone who drives) needs to know that’s the arena they’re playing in.
She married into the Lunken family for which the original Cincinnati airport is named after and she’s going to be buried on the hill overlooking it.
This reminds me of Bob Hoover who buzzed the airport in Springfield OH. I remember him saying that was the reason he wasn’t chosen to be the pilot who broke the sound barrier.
It’s not like she needs a license to fly so this won’t interfere with her hobbies. She might need to take on partners with her plane(s) to get them insured.
How did she know it provided no danger to anyone? Or to any public property?
What’s the effect of taking away all hours?
This is the sort of thing you do on your last flight before you retire or in a video game.
What does this sentence mean?
exactly what it says.
She’s well entrenched in local aviation. There are an infinite number of pilots who will ride with her as a passenger PIC.
Thank you.
I couldn’t tell whether you meant she’d have volunteer “safety” pilots or that she felt she was enough of a legend that she’d simply fly bootleg and dare the Feds to do anything about it.