Talk: AH-33 Topachula

The following was added today and removed

"As it lacks a tail rotor and it doesn't have a twin-rotor system, the AH-33 Topachula utilized a ducted-exhaust NOTAR (NO TAil Rotor) system. This system is similiar to the Aerotécnica AC-14 ducted-exhaust NOTAR system, with the exhaust ducts mounted at the rear of the main rotor, similiar to the NOTAR system used in a MD900 Explorer. Further speculation could prove this craft simply utilizes the exact same system as the MD900 Explorer, but with ducted jets to control airflow. This helicopter system is considered fictional, as no real world aircraft uses this system; but that does not negate the theory that it could work."

The person who added this obviously doesn't understand how helicopters work and didn't even bother to look at the articles he linked. The pictures on the MD900 Explorer clearly show the air directing duct at the rear end of the large pipe. That helicopter simply does not redirect all of its engine exhaust to the duct. Most of it is exhausted as on a usual helicopter. The reason is that jet exhaust is hot enough to injure people. The rear ends of the engines can not be turned to redirect the airflow and if they could, they would be too close to the main rotor axis to keep the helicopter from spinning itself opposite to the main rotor.

And yes, it absolutely "negates the theory that it could work". GMRE (talk) 15:33, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

User:Techengage added that. I negated it (despite having virtually no knowledge about helicopters) partially by your reasoning above, GMRE Anonymous230385 ^{Any questions? Wanna talk?} 06:13, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

\Not added by Techengage, thank you. Techengage disputes the ability of this aircraft working with a NOTAR system without a rear duct to forward upward-pressure. Techengage (talk) 08:35, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Further editing dispute

A part of the following argument was moved here from my talk page and from User talk:Anonymous230385. Also, I locked the article until further notice, because apparently it can't go a single day with out some kind of vandalism, or editing disputes, or people making ludicrous claims about the NOTAR-system. GMRE (talk) 08:13, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Anonymous

As requested in a very descriptive explanation, why do you feel a need to remove my edits without a doubt that you are incorrect? The AH-33 Topachula uses a fictionally-based propulsion system (best compared to the AH-21N scraped by the USAF in 1991). By adding Wikipedia links to this page, you are changing the term-of-subject from the AH-33 Topachula to a discussion involving that of the NOTAR system. Your description is impertinent to the description of the AH-33 Topachula, and also includes a few grammatical errors (Nor to describe the differentiality of two similiar subjects results in the use of 'or", not "nor"). Kindly accept the explanation given as fact, considering I have contacted an aircraft engineer contracted with the United States Signal Corps Aeronaeutical Division in regards to this fictional craft. If you find this explanation infactual nor reputable, kindly contact me directly before trying to inform Just Cause 2 players about propulsion systems that do not exist in the "fictional' aircraft they are pretending to use. Thank you, Administration for your future prompt and professional response. Also, my e-mail is NEOSHADOW737@YAHOO.COM. I would love to speak with you, personally, about your experience in Military MO Forward Propulsion Systems and how they do and do not work.

Best Regards,

P.S. I want to be sure to point out that through all of this, you are correct. The AH-33 Topachula is NOT a NOTAR-system based gunship. You are very right that physics would lift this craft up, but would never give the pilot any yolk control, rendering it a heavyweight kite. So rest assured, no matter the description, this is not a NOTAR aircraft. :)

User:Techengage (talk) 05:54, May 17, 2016 (UTC)Jon M.

Hello, GMRE.

In regards to the AH-33 TOPACHULA, why does Anonymous230385 find it necessary to continue adding multiple lines of information regarding NOTAR systems? The page is for discussion involving the AH-33, so I, personally, do not feel multiple and confusing explanations of a seperate subject are required. The AH-33 does not use a NOTAR system, and is a fictional design based on a few scraped gunship designs that were actually prototyped by the USAF. (which were meant to work like a NOTAR system without a rear duct). I would be very interested to learn more, as I have spoken with aircraft engineers on this subject, if there is anything to question here.

Thank you for you time, Techengage (talk) 01:24, May 17, 2016 (UTC) Jon M.

First of all, the reason why this whole thing came up was because some anonymous user and others claim that the helicopter design is NOTAR, but it isn't. GMRE even bothered to upload a picture into the gallery to show the difference.

Either that, or I completely misinterpreted what you are saying

Anyway, I just simply reverted the information that was on there to start with. This is not some "adding multiple lines of information regarding NOTAR" because those lines are necessary for the reader to understand what NOTAR is

Sincerely, Anonymous230385 ^{Any questions? Wanna talk?} 03:51, May 17, 2016 (UTC) A230385

The Topachula, through extensive research, is not a NOTAR-based craft. The simple fact is NOTAR explanations are not required on this page, therefore I removed them. Kindly advise any issue with removing unnecessary information from this page. We have agreed, hopefully, that under description given officially by the USSCAD (United States Signal Corps Aeronaeutical Division), that this aircraft uses a fictional propulsion system best based on the prototype AH-21N (scraped in '91), and not a NOTAR system. NOTAR requires mid low-pressure energy provided by the main rotor shaft, exerted down into a vent which creates upward pressure towards the tailboom through vented ducts found in the end of the tail. The AH-33 Topachula does not use this technology, is completely fictional, and therefore does not require an explanation about systems and/or technologies it does not realisically utilize. Once again, kindly explain if what I say is found to not be factual. (Please include references, URL's, etc to show what I have said, in direct reference to the USSCAD, citing them as incorrect.) Thank you,

Techengage (talk) 06:04, May 17, 2016 (UTC)Jon M.

Not a NOTAR

I agree with the editation provided on this page. I reason as to why this aircraft does not use NOTAR-sytems, and the simple fact that THIS AIRCRAFT'S SCHEMATIC IS IMPOSSIBLE AGAINST ANY REASONABLE ABILITY OF PHYSICS. Thank you, GMRE, for creating your own wording as to not confuse future members. User:Techengage 06:22, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Okay

Just so we are perfectly clear...

This helicopter is NOT a NOTAR design and I agree that this aircraft schematic is impossible

In other words, I agree with GMRE and you, Techengage

...

What's the problem again? That I made it too wordy?

The way I see it, more words can make NOTAR less confusing to any readers Anonymous230385 ^{Any questions? Wanna talk?} 13:53, May 17, 2016 (UTC)