If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , David Windhorst wrote: John?] wrote: much interesting info snipped Controlled Descent ? The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does the pilot retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot will still have complete control of his descent and his flight controls. The majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump mounted on the main transmission. Is this how the anti-torque rotor is driven in the event of powerplant failure? Absolutely. The tail rotor is powered by a driveshaft which receives output from the main transmission. As long as the main rotor and main transmission continue to rotate, the tailrotor will do likewise. On the UH-1 isn't part of that "driveshaft" linkage to the tail rotor actually a titanium chain? Brooks John |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Did Igor work out all this stuff early on, or did it evolve with each
new generation of helos? I mean, were the VS 300 and R4 capable of controlled autorotation, etc.? Yes sir.... We certainly owe a lot to Uncle Igor. BTW, I haven't seen anyone include the actual definition of an autorotation in this thread: Autorotation, (n)., a method of keeping the pilot's hands and feet busy as he plummets to his death. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , Kevin Brooks wrote: "John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , David Windhorst wrote: John?] wrote: much interesting info snipped Controlled Descent ? The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does the pilot retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot will still have complete control of his descent and his flight controls. The majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump mounted on the main transmission. Is this how the anti-torque rotor is driven in the event of powerplant failure? Absolutely. The tail rotor is powered by a driveshaft which receives output from the main transmission. As long as the main rotor and main transmission continue to rotate, the tailrotor will do likewise. On the UH-1 isn't part of that "driveshaft" linkage to the tail rotor actually a titanium chain? Brooks Nope. The driveshaft is an actual driveshaft which drives two gearboxes and the tail rotor. http://incolor.inebraska.com/iceman/data/tr1.jpg The titanium chain you have in mind is in the tailrotor control system as opposed to the drive system and controls the pitch of the tailrotor blades. http://incolor.inebraska.com/iceman/data/specs509.jpg So the breakage of that chain renders the tail rotor of little use? Honest question here-- I used to have a chunk of one of those chains; my brother's crew chief braved a growing fire and ammo that had started cooking off to go snatch the chain from their Dustoff bird after being shot down, and later broke it up into pieces for each crewmember as a momento. I just never knew the actual role it played in the control of the tail rotor, thinking instead it was a drive chain. Brooks John |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , Kevin Brooks wrote: "John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , Kevin Brooks wrote: "John?] " wrote in message . net... In article , David Windhorst wrote: John?] wrote: much interesting info snipped Controlled Descent ? The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does the pilot retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot will still have complete control of his descent and his flight controls. The majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump mounted on the main transmission. Is this how the anti-torque rotor is driven in the event of powerplant failure? Absolutely. The tail rotor is powered by a driveshaft which receives output from the main transmission. As long as the main rotor and main transmission continue to rotate, the tailrotor will do likewise. On the UH-1 isn't part of that "driveshaft" linkage to the tail rotor actually a titanium chain? Brooks Nope. The driveshaft is an actual driveshaft which drives two gearboxes and the tail rotor. http://incolor.inebraska.com/iceman/data/tr1.jpg The titanium chain you have in mind is in the tailrotor control system as opposed to the drive system and controls the pitch of the tailrotor blades. http://incolor.inebraska.com/iceman/data/specs509.jpg So the breakage of that chain renders the tail rotor of little use? Honest question here-- I used to have a chunk of one of those chains; my brother's crew chief braved a growing fire and ammo that had started cooking off to go snatch the chain from their Dustoff bird after being shot down, and later broke it up into pieces for each crewmember as a momento. I just never knew the actual role it played in the control of the tail rotor, thinking instead it was a drive chain. Brooks Bracelets made of tail rotor chain are a popular memento in helicopter units. If it breaks, the tail rotor continues to function but you no longer have any control over the pitch in the blades so the aircraft will yaw and eventually spin left or right as you increase or decrease collective pitch. Your hole card is the fact that the throttle can be controlled manually in an emergency and the yaw can be controlled by increasing or decreasing throttle to keep the nose straight. Hovering is not possible, so students are taught to execute a low speed running landing and to control the yaw with throttle. They practice landings with the pedals fixed both in a nose left and nose right configuration. The landings can be a little hairy sometimes but like anything else it's practice, practice, practice. Ah. Clearer now. Thanks. Brooks John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:30:44 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: John, you might be able to answer a question I have regarding autorotations. My late brother experienced exactly one serious mishap in a helo (outside getting shot down once in Vietnam and having various small arms rounds zing through the cabin on other occasions). It involved an autorotation in a Schweizer 300C (read as Hughes 300/TH-55). He was checking out a cop from the (unnamed big city) police department, which had recently purchased a couple of 300C's for law enforcement work. Apparently the cop, who was also a part-time ARNG Cobra pilot, had come through flight school during the post-TH-55 days. During the autorotation, the guy apparently treated the 300C like it was a Cobra, which I gather is a bad thing to do, and when my brother tried to take back over the guy froze up and fought the controls--resulting in a hard landing and rolling the aircraft onto its side (he compounded that by stomping all over my brother, who was left on the lower side, in his haste to depart the now-stationary aircraft). Any idea what the guy could have done that led to my brother trying to take control? And FYI--the accident investigation cleared my brother in the incident, so I gather that his side of the story was the way it happened. Kevin, I've been talking about this with a well-know Vietnam-era cav pilot and he says that there's not a whole lot of difference between a TH-55/Hughes 300 "Mattel Messerschmitt" as far as autorotation. The Cobra flares higher and longer, and TH-55s level the skids prior to touchdown. He says it sounds like a late "recovery" to him. If you have a date and location we could dig out the NTSB accident report and see what the official cause was. John Hairell |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"John Hairell" wrote in message news On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:30:44 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: John, you might be able to answer a question I have regarding autorotations. My late brother experienced exactly one serious mishap in a helo (outside getting shot down once in Vietnam and having various small arms rounds zing through the cabin on other occasions). It involved an autorotation in a Schweizer 300C (read as Hughes 300/TH-55). He was checking out a cop from the (unnamed big city) police department, which had recently purchased a couple of 300C's for law enforcement work. Apparently the cop, who was also a part-time ARNG Cobra pilot, had come through flight school during the post-TH-55 days. During the autorotation, the guy apparently treated the 300C like it was a Cobra, which I gather is a bad thing to do, and when my brother tried to take back over the guy froze up and fought the controls--resulting in a hard landing and rolling the aircraft onto its side (he compounded that by stomping all over my brother, who was left on the lower side, in his haste to depart the now-stationary aircraft). Any idea what the guy could have done that led to my brother trying to take control? And FYI--the accident investigation cleared my brother in the incident, so I gather that his side of the story was the way it happened. Kevin, I've been talking about this with a well-know Vietnam-era cav pilot and he says that there's not a whole lot of difference between a TH-55/Hughes 300 "Mattel Messerschmitt" as far as autorotation. The Cobra flares higher and longer, and TH-55s level the skids prior to touchdown. He says it sounds like a late "recovery" to him. If you have a date and location we could dig out the NTSB accident report and see what the official cause was. I am guessing around the '88 to '90 timeframe. Pretty sure the accident occured at the Schweizer plant location in Elmira, NY (he was employed by Schweizer up until he died of cancer in '93). Thanks. Brooks John Hairell |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"John Hairell" wrote in message news On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:30:44 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: John, you might be able to answer a question I have regarding autorotations. My late brother experienced exactly one serious mishap in a helo (outside getting shot down once in Vietnam and having various small arms rounds zing through the cabin on other occasions). It involved an autorotation in a Schweizer 300C (read as Hughes 300/TH-55). He was checking out a cop from the (unnamed big city) police department, which had recently purchased a couple of 300C's for law enforcement work. Apparently the cop, who was also a part-time ARNG Cobra pilot, had come through flight school during the post-TH-55 days. During the autorotation, the guy apparently treated the 300C like it was a Cobra, which I gather is a bad thing to do, and when my brother tried to take back over the guy froze up and fought the controls--resulting in a hard landing and rolling the aircraft onto its side (he compounded that by stomping all over my brother, who was left on the lower side, in his haste to depart the now-stationary aircraft). Any idea what the guy could have done that led to my brother trying to take control? And FYI--the accident investigation cleared my brother in the incident, so I gather that his side of the story was the way it happened. Kevin, I've been talking about this with a well-know Vietnam-era cav pilot and he says that there's not a whole lot of difference between a TH-55/Hughes 300 "Mattel Messerschmitt" as far as autorotation. The Cobra flares higher and longer, and TH-55s level the skids prior to touchdown. He says it sounds like a late "recovery" to him. If you have a date and location we could dig out the NTSB accident report and see what the official cause was. John Hairell Your message got me to scrounging on my own and I found the NTSB report (20001211X16230 --not easy to find, as the NTSB for some reason labled the aircraft as a Hughes 269, instead of Schweizer 300C, which they use elsewhere in their database). Looks like they dinged my brother for supervisory failures (i.e., failing to sufficiently prepare for "NO TRANSFER OF CONTROL PROCEDURES HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFORE TAKEOFF", but noted the copilot as a cause for "improper" touchdown. Interestingly, they also dinged Larry for failing to take over the aircraft "in a timely manner", but as I recall it he indicated the problem arose rather abruptly as they were approaching touchdown, and when he tried to take over the copilot refused to relinquish control (the report indicates *both* were on the controls at impact). Beyond the data in the report, all I can remember him indicating was that the investigator assured him he nothing to worry about in terms of any regulatory/punitive actions. I was surprised to note that the incident occured only about seven months before he passed away--I had thought it a bit earlier. Thanks for the heads up. Brooks |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:01:35 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: Your message got me to scrounging on my own and I found the NTSB report (20001211X16230 --not easy to find, as the NTSB for some reason labled the aircraft as a Hughes 269, instead of Schweizer 300C, which they use elsewhere in their database). Looks like they dinged my brother for supervisory failures (i.e., failing to sufficiently prepare for "NO TRANSFER OF CONTROL PROCEDURES HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFORE TAKEOFF", but noted the copilot as a cause for "improper" touchdown. Interestingly, they also dinged Larry for failing to take over the aircraft "in a timely manner", but as I recall it he indicated the problem arose rather abruptly as they were approaching touchdown, and when he tried to take over the copilot refused to relinquish control (the report indicates *both* were on the controls at impact). Beyond the data in the report, all I can remember him indicating was that the investigator assured him he nothing to worry about in terms of any regulatory/punitive actions. I was surprised to note that the incident occured only about seven months before he passed away--I had thought it a bit earlier. Yeah, the NTSB database needs some cleaning up. The FAA civil registry database is even worse - they've got many, many examples of the same aircraft type listed under multiple model numbers. And they should stick with the manufacturer's model number versus the sales name, which may not be the same, for example there's no such thing as a Hughes model 500C or 500D or 500E (it's a model 369HS/HC/HM/D/E or 530 variant). OH-6As are model 369A but they have some listed as 500s. Doing civil registry searches I have to look under 12 different model types to dig them all out, when I should have to look at the most four or five. Some of the model numbers have typos in them, so you have to also think of all of the possible errors they could have made. I keep running into N-numbers that should belong to a known model type but when I look them up I find they have been mis-filed. Unless you know the specific N-number of that aircraft you would never find it using a model search. John Hairell |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Junkers Ju86R-1 high altitude recce aircraft | Dave Eadsforth | Military Aviation | 2 | January 24th 04 10:36 PM |
High altitude Helicopter work | Allen | Military Aviation | 34 | December 5th 03 08:17 AM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
Low and high altitude airways | David Megginson | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | September 9th 03 01:18 AM |
High Altitude operations (Turbo charge???) | Andre | Home Built | 68 | July 11th 03 11:59 PM |