High-altitude autorotations?

"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

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.

"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

"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

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

"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

"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

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