Whatever their mechanical quirks, helicopters are still pretty damn cool, and the main point is that I could actually get to learn to fly them, which trumps all other points on the scale of interesting.
Now's the perfect time to learn how to fly, since the higher-end heli's take care of most of the stabilization
.
I am not saying the are components are crude, I am saying the concept is. The fact that continual application of power is needed in order to prevent falling at terminal velocity dosn't strike you as inefficient? combine that with the need to continually use power to stop the thing from counter spinning the rotors? Compared to a the average fixed wing where loss of power don't equal vertical drop, and you don't have to waste power on a secondary function to prevent crashing.
Yes, exactly. Helicopters are far less efficient at slow speeds because most of the power used is directed towards achieving zero-weight buoyancy. At higher speeds, I think the efficiency reaches that of an airplane (and yes, there are super-sonic helicopters).
But the main point about helicopters is their hovering and VTOL ability. Even the JSF can toast bystanders on the ground while it's landing/taking off, much less burn down an open grass field. Helicopters don't have this issue.
The V-22 Osprey Bi-tilt-rotor is perhaps the best combination of a helicopter and airplane, since it can change flight modes to suit the need. Thankfully the engineers worked out that nasty spiral-of-doom problem with it, so they're safe.
There's also some archived plans for a V-44 Quad-tilt-rotor that's about the size of an AC-130. (Basically it's the heavy-lift version of the V-22).
